SR 03-27-2018 7B
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: March 27, 2018
Agenda Item: 7.B
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Administration
Subject: Introduction for First Reading of an Interim Ordinance Extending Interim
Zoning Ordinance 2569 (CCS) for Interim Changes to 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
(Attachment A) extending interim development standards in the R1 zoning district.
Executive Summary
On February 13, 2018, Council adopted Interim Zoning Ordinance No. 2569 to
temporarily reduce the scale of new construction in R1 zoning districts. The interim
ordinance was adopted in response to community concerns regarding the size of new
home construction and the number of pending applications for demolitions and new
home construction in the R1 district.
The Council also established February 23, 2018 as the date that complete applications
for new construction in the R1 zone must be submitted in order to be reviewed under
then-current standards. Between January 23, 2018 and February 23, 2018, 23
applications for new home construction in the R1 zone were submitted. An additional
six applications for additions/remodels were also submitted. Nine demolition permits
were submitted, raising the total number of pending demolition permits to 42.
Comparatively, over the past three years during the same period, the City received less
than eight applications for new construction. Annually, the City typically receives
approximately five permit applications per month.
2 of 5
The interim ordinance is set to expire on May 15, 2018. This report proposes extending
the interim ordinance until November 15, 2019 to provide an opportunity to conduct a
comprehensive revision of the R1 standards, including exploring potential solutions to
address the problem of the size of new home construction and the number of
demolitions of existing homes to make way for new homes that are out of scale in the
R1 district. The extension will also allow time for a robust public engagement process.
Background
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, 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.
As part of Council’s discussion on City Planning Division priorities on January 9, 2018
and in response to significant concerns raised by neighborhood groups and residents
about the size and scale of new single-unit dwelling construction, Council determined
that a revision to the R1 standards was of high importance. Council further directed
staff to return with interim zoning standards that would temporarily reduce the size and
scale of new homes pending a public process to study revisions to the R1 zone
development standards.
Staff prepared an Interim Zoning Ordinance after considering Council direction and
public input, and conducting its own analysis. On January 23, 2018, Council conducted
a public hearing to introduce the proposed interim ordinance for first reading that
established the following interim changes applicable to new construction in the R1
district:
Reduced maximum building height to 28 feet;
3 of 5
Limited maximum parcel coverage to overall 50% on a sliding scale with a
maximum 20% parcel coverage for the second floor;
Required that upper level stepbacks are measured from the second floor;
Limited aggregate second floor balconies and decks to an aggregate of 400 sf;
and
Eliminated accessory dwelling units from parcel coverage calculations.
The interim ordinance was adopted on February 13, 2018 and became effective on
March 16, 2018. Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.46.090(C), the ordinance is set to expire
sixty days thereafter, on May 15, 2018. Council may extend the interim ordinance
beyond May 15, 2018 for up to 60 months.
Discussion
Adoption of the proposed ordinance extending the applicability of the interim
development standards for the R1 district would ensure that the opportunity to protect
the City’s unique and diverse neighborhoods is not lost while a comprehensive review of
the R1 standards is underway. The interim standards continue to allow for reasonable
new construction in the R1 district more consistent with existing neighborhood
character.
The interim ordinance represents a temporary measure to reduce the maximum
allowable size of new single-unit dwellings in the R1 zoning districts. Pursuant to SMMC
Section 9.46.090(C), the initial interim ordinance can only be adopted for 60 days and is
set to expire on May 15, 2018. The proposed interim ordinance would extend the term
for an additional 18 months. Prior to expiration of the extended interim ordinance on
November 15, 2019, staff will undertake a comprehensive update to the R1
Development Standards, which was identified as a high City Planning priority by Council
on January 9, 2018.
The extension of this ordinance would provide opportunity for study of existing
standards and exploration of possible options to address the scale and mass of new
4 of 5
construction with all affected stakeholders. In a recent study session on potential
zoning amendments, the Planning Commission directed moving some potential
amendments, such as thresholds for requiring new garages in R1 districts, to the R1
comprehensive update because of their association with potential incentives for
additions/remodels instead of demolition and new construction. This work effort 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.
Community Outreach
Since the interim standards were enacted, staff has received numerous inquiries from
homeowners requesting information about the standards and concerns about loss of
property value. Further, staff was invited to the North of Montana’s Association annual
meeting where some attendees expressed opposition to the interim standards and the
lack of notification regarding the changes. In order to provide broad notice of the interim
standards, in addition to the public notice required by SMMC Sections 9.46.090(C) and
9.37.050(B), staff has disseminated information in the following ways:
Summary of changes on PCD website (www.smgov.net/pcd)
Summary of changes in press release
Summary of changes in Seascape March edition
Summary e-mail to PCD e-mail distribution list
Postcard mailing to 7,700 homes
Staff anticipates a broad public engagement process to include all stakeholders affected
by changes to the R1 standards. The form and scale of the outreach process is not yet
determined. However, given the technically nuanced nature of the amendments being
considered, staff is considering forming a technical working group of local design and
construction professionals as a starting point. This is an approach that was previously
taken in developing the North of Montana Development Guide. A link has also been
added to the PCD website for interested stakeholders to sign-up if they wish to
participate in the R1 update. Staff anticipates holding public workshops and smaller
5 of 5
meetings as necessary that present the work of the technical working group. This
would allow residents to provide feedback on possible options for the amendments.
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.
Prepared By: Jing Yeo, Planning Manager
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Ordinance
B. Written Comments
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Linda Fineman <fineman.linda@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:25 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Proposed Interim Ordinance Extending Interim Ordinance 2569 (CCS)
City Clerk
Re: R1 Interim Zoning Ordinance Extension 1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear City Clerk,
When I first heard about the temporary reduction in new construction density I thought it sounded like a good
idea to at least take some time to evaluate it. I now have and am against the proposed changes for several
reasons.
Height limits ‐ one size don’t fit all. Different height limits are appropriate for different size lots. I don’t think
a 5,000 sf lot should have the same height as a 9,000 sf lot. Under the current proposal we are going to end of
with boring, uniform designs and probably many more flat roof homes. I like a variety of roof heights and I
don’t find anything objectionable to high pitched roofs. I don’t believe we allow 3‐story homes (which would
be the real concern) and 28 feet sounds too low for larger lots (I would be willing to bet at that height, every
house will be built to the max).
Coverage – the proposal results in homes which are too small. So on a 5,000 sf lot the max you could have is
2,500 sf ranging up to 4,500 sf for a 9,000 sf lot. For some, these sizes are more than sufficient. However I
know of other families where this just won't work ‐ husband and wife who both work at home, four children
and two grandparents living under the same roof. A home of only 50% lot coverage will not work for
them. Are we now saying we don’t want multi‐generational families with children moving to Santa
Monica? It almost seems that this is a tool to try and limit families. The State is going towards no limits on
density and Santa Monica seems to be moving in a completely opposite direction. If we truly want to try and
solve our affordable housing crisis, then allowing larger homes which can accommodate more people is a very
simple way to do this.
I have not found anything objectionable about the size of the new homes being built recently. What I have
found objectionable is the style – a bunch of identical, white “East Coast” style homes. Downzoning the
coverage is not going to have any impact on that.
On a practical note, regardless if you like big or small homes, I believe the City's downzoning would be
challenged in court as a "taking" and the City will incur material legal bills in an unsuccessful defense. Most
people purchased their homes before these changes. These properties represent very large investments and
many owners are not going to sit by and let their property values be decreased by this. Our City faces
increasing fiscal challenges and I don’t think fighting lawsuits which the City will lose is a good use of precious
financial resources. There are many more important battles to fight.
Thank you for your attention. I hope you will take the above into account.
Linda Fineman
Santa Monica
Item 7-B
03/27/18
1 of 20 Item 7-B
03/27/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Friday, March 23, 2018 9:10 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich;
Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:FOSP: City Council 3/27/18 agenda item 7-B: Interim Zoning Ordinance Extension --
Support
March 23, 2018
To: City Council
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 3/27/18 agenda item 7-B:
B. Introduction for First Reading of an Interim Ordinance Extending Interim Zoning Ordinance 2569 (CCS)
for Interim Changes to Development Standards in the R1 Zoning District Pending Adoption of
Permanent Revisions to the R1 Development Standards
The FOSP Board strongly supports the extension to November 2019 of the Interim Zoning Ordinance
which reduces maximum lot coverage for 2-story single family homes from a total of 61% to 50%.
Our reasons for supporting the IZO were laid out in our February 10, 2018 letter to the City Council (see
below).
Existing homes continue to be demolished in Sunset Park and replaced with very large new homes, and there
seem to be dozens of demolition permits pending.
Thank you for your consideration.
From: zinajosephs@aol.com
To: CouncilMtgItems@smgov.net, kevin@mckeown.net, tony.vazquez@smgov.net,
gleam.davis@smgov.net, sue.himmelrich@smgov.net, pam.oconnor@smgov.net,
terry.oday@smgov.net, ted.winterer@smgov.net
Sent: 2/10/2018 11:16:08 AM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: City Council 2/13/18 agenda item 7-A: Interim Zoning Ordinance -- Support
February 10, 2018
To: City Council
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
Item 7-B
03/27/18
2 of 20 Item 7-B
03/27/18
2
RE: 2/13/18 agenda item 7-A: Interim Zoning Ordinance 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
The FOSP Board supports this interim zoning ordinance to reduce maximum lot coverage for 2-
story single family homes from a total of 61% to 50%.
Maximum height for 2-story homes in the Sunset Park neighborhood would remain at 28 feet.
(Maximum height for homes north of Montana would be reduced from 32’ to 28’.)
Maximum lot coverage for 1-story homes would remain at 50%.
The maximum aggregate square footage of 2nd floor balconies, terraces, and roof decks would be 400
sq ft (extending a north of Montana maximum citywide).
Per City Council direction, accessory dwelling units ("granny flats") would be excluded from lot
coverage calculations.
***************************************************************************
Background:
Three neighborhood associations 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.
The questionnaire was emailed to all Sunset Park residents on the FOSP group email list.
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-B
03/27/18
3 of 20 Item 7-B
03/27/18
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 5. I think the new construction may interfere with sea breezes. 60% 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 who submitted comments.
Item 7-B
03/27/18
4 of 20 Item 7-B
03/27/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 2:23 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Tony Vazquez
Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Anuj Gupta; David Martin
Subject:FW: R1 zoning changes
Council‐
Please see the below email regarding the extension of the R1 interim zoning ordinance.
Thanks,
Stephanie
From: Linda Fineman [mailto:fineman.linda@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 3:32 PM
To: Planning <Planning@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Santa Monica City Manager's
Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: R1 zoning changes
When I first heard about the temporary reduction in new construction density I thought it sounded like a good
idea to at least take some time to evaluate it. I now have and am against the proposed changes for several
reasons.
Height limits ‐ one size don’t fit all. Different height limits are appropriate for different size lots. I don’t think
a 5,000 sf lot should have the same height as a 9,000 sf lot. Under the current proposal we are going to end of
with boring, uniform designs and probably many more flat roof homes. I like a variety of roof heights and I
don’t find anything objectionable to high pitched roofs. I don’t believe we allow 3‐story homes (which would
be the real concern) and 28 feet sounds too low for larger lots (I would be willing to bet at that height, every
house will be built to the max).
Coverage – the proposal results in homes which are too small. So on a 5,000 sf lot the max you could have is
2,500 sf ranging up to 4,500 sf for a 9,000 sf lot. For some, these sizes are more than sufficient. However I
know of other families where this just won't work ‐ husband and wife who both work at home, four children
and two grandparents living under the same roof. A home of only 50% lot coverage will not work for
them. Are we now saying we don’t want multi‐generational families with children moving to Santa
Monica? It almost seems that this is a tool to try and limit families. The State is going towards no limits on
density and Santa Monica seems to be moving in a completely opposite direction. If we truly want to try and
solve our affordable housing crisis, then allowing larger homes which can accommodate more people is a very
simple way to do this.
I have not found anything objectionable about the size of the new homes being built recently. What I have
found objectionable is the style – a bunch of identical, white “East Coast” style homes. Downzoning the
coverage is not going to have any impact on that.
On a practical note,regardless if you like big or small homes, I believe the City's downzoning would be
challenged in court as a "taking" and the City will incur material legal bills in an unsuccessful defense. Most
people purchased their homes before these changes. These properties represent very large investments and
many owners are not going to sit by and let their property values be decreased by this. Our City faces
Item 7-B
03/27/18
5 of 20 Item 7-B
03/27/18
2
increasing fiscal challenges and I don’t think fighting lawsuits which the City will lose is a good use of precious
financial resources. There are many more important battles to fight.
Thank you for your attention. I hope you will take the above into account.
Linda Fineman
Santa Monica
Item 7-B
03/27/18
6 of 20 Item 7-B
03/27/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 2:23 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Tony Vazquez
Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Anuj Gupta; David Martin
Subject:FW: Proposed Interim Ordinance extending Interim Ordinance 2569 (CCS)
Council‐
Please see the below email regarding the extension of the R1 interim zoning ordinance.
Thanks,
Stephanie
From: Katharine Dreyfuss [mailto:kitdreyfuss@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2018 4:36 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Fwd: Proposed Interim Ordinance extending Interim Ordinance 2569 (CCS)
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <kitdreyfuss@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 4:34 PM
Subject: Proposed Interim Ordinance extending Interim Ordinance 2569 (CCS)
To: councilmeetingitems@smgov.net, NOMA Boardmember <nomaboard@gmail.com>
Dear Council members:
Please extend the initial interim ordinance you adopted on January 23, 2018, pending adoption of permanent
revisions to the R1 development standards, until November 22, 2019. Make sure that our city conducts a
comprehensive revision to R1 development standards, particularly with respect to the size and scale of new
construction.
Thank you for your attention to concerns of your fellow residents.
Sincerely,
Katharine Dreyfuss
Item 7-B
03/27/18
7 of 20 Item 7-B
03/27/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Lauren de la Fuente <ldelafuente@boingo.com>
Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 2:39 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:I support reduced building in Santa Monica
To the Santa Monica City Council,
Please note my support of reduced building in R1 single‐family zoning districts. Currently, developers are making Sunset
Park look like Orange County developments with the same oversized “Hampton‐style” housing. Stop the
overdevelopment on the small lots. Make people and architects and developers and owners respect the neighborhood
with unique and special designs. Not the same house throughout the Sunset Park neighborhood. We don’t need
MacMasions or Stepford Wife neighborhood!
I live on 2110 Pearl Street, 90405 and I vote. And many of the developers are not from Santa Monica. Let’s keep Santa
Monica awesome! Stop the overdevelopment!!!! ☺
Thank you!
Lauren
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
lauren de la fuente
vice president, marketing + communications
boingo wireless, inc. [nasdaq: wifi]
10960 wilshire blvd., suite 2300
los angeles, ca 90024
1.310.405.8517 – office
1.310.283.8488 mobile
http://www.boingo.com
Item 7-B
03/27/18
8 of 20 Item 7-B
03/27/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Lauren de la Fuente <lauren@pearlstreetmarketing.com>
Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 8:08 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor;
Pam OConnor; Ted Winterer
Subject:KEEP THE EXTENSION OF INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE!! PLEASE!
Importance:High
Lauren supports the extension of the interim zoning ordinance to reduce maximum lot coverage for 2-
story single family homes from a total of 61% to 50%.
-Maximum height for 2-story homes in the Sunset Park neighborhood would remain at 28 feet. (Maximum
height for homes north of Montana would be reduced from 32’ to 28’.)
-Maximum lot coverage for 1-story homes would remain at 50%.
-The maximum aggregate square footage of 2nd floor balconies, terraces, and roof decks would be 400 sq ft
(extending a north of Montana maximum citywide).
-Accessory dwelling units ("granny flats") would be excluded from lot coverage calculations.
I see many homes being demolished to make way for overly large new homes. I would prefer that the City
Council create incentives for existing homes to be remodeled instead of demolished.
DON’T MAKE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD INTO A SUBURBAN WASTELAND WITH ALL THE
HOUSES LOOKING LIKE THE SAME. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE DON’T BECOME A
WASTELAND OF HOMES THAT ARE INTERESTING NOW AND DATED LATER. I LIKE
DIFFERENTIATION AND HOUSES WITH SMALLER FOOTPRINTS.
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-B
03/27/18
9 of 20 Item 7-B
03/27/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Van Denburgh <emvandenburgh@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 27, 2018 10:06 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Tony
Vazquez; Sue Himmelrich; Ted Winterer; Terry O’Day
Cc:David Martin; Clerk Mailbox; Reinhard Kargl; Deborah Roetman; betzi richardson;
Rosemary Sostarich
Subject:Extending R1 Interim Development Standards, 3/2718 Agenda Item 7-B
Mayor Winterer and City Council Members,
The Wilmont Board of Directors strongly endorses the extension of the Interim Zoning Ordinance 2569 (CCS)
for Interim Changes to Development Standards in the R1 Zoning District Pending Adoption of Permanent
Revisions to the R1 Development Standards.
We recommend the extension to November 2019 and support that the Interim Zoning Ordinance because of the
following: 1) better supports the privacy of adjoining properties 2) better supports the keeping of trees and
green scape 3) better supports the access to sunlight and sea breezes and 4) better keeps the heights and size of
new construction in proportion to neighboring homes. We support the use of incentives or disincentives to
encourage rehabilitation and adaptive use vs. demotion of older-single family homes.
As well, we believe this is an appropriate time to support our net energy goal for new construction and look to
ensure that properties in the City are protected by a City solar "shadow" ordinance. This ordinance will enable
the ability of energy sustainability of our residential neighborhoods' properties as well as commercial properties.
Thank-you for your effort and focus on this issue.
Best,
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
For Wilmont Board of Directors
Item 7-B
03/27/18
10 of 20 Item 7-B
03/27/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:00 AM
To:Elizabeth Van Denburgh
Cc:councilmtgitems; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Tony
Vazquez; Sue Himmelrich; Ted Winterer; Terry O’Day; David Martin; Clerk Mailbox;
Reinhard Kargl; Deborah Roetman; betzi richardson; Rosemary Sostarich
Subject:Re: Extending R1 Interim Development Standards, 3/2718 Agenda Item 7-B
Thanks for sharing this Elizabeth.
Tricia
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Elizabeth Van Denburgh <emvandenburgh@gmail.com> wrote:
Mayor Winterer and City Council Members,
The Wilmont Board of Directors strongly endorses the extension of the Interim Zoning Ordinance 2569 (CCS)
for Interim Changes to Development Standards in the R1 Zoning District Pending Adoption of Permanent
Revisions to the R1 Development Standards.
We recommend the extension to November 2019 and support that the Interim Zoning Ordinance because of the
following: 1) better supports the privacy of adjoining properties 2) better supports the keeping of trees and
green scape 3) better supports the access to sunlight and sea breezes and 4) better keeps the heights and size of
new construction in proportion to neighboring homes. We support the use of incentives or disincentives to
encourage rehabilitation and adaptive use vs. demotion of older-single family homes.
As well, we believe this is an appropriate time to support our net energy goal for new construction and look to
ensure that properties in the City are protected by a City solar "shadow" ordinance. This ordinance will enable
the ability of energy sustainability of our residential neighborhoods' properties as well as commercial
properties.
Thank-you for your effort and focus on this issue.
Best,
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
For Wilmont Board of Directors
Item 7-B
03/27/18
11 of 20 Item 7-B
03/27/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Clerk Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:06 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Extending R1 Interim Development Standards, 3/2718 Agenda Item 7-B
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh [mailto:emvandenburgh@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 10:06 AM
To: councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown
<Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Pam OConnor
<Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>; Tony Vazquez <Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich
<Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>
Cc: David Martin <David.Martin@SMGOV.NET>; Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Reinhard Kargl
<reinhardka@aol.com>; Deborah Roetman <debrmail@gmail.com>; betzi richardson <betzir77@yahoo.com>; Rosemary
Sostarich <r.sostarich@gmail.com>
Subject: Extending R1 Interim Development Standards, 3/2718 Agenda Item 7‐B
Mayor Winterer and City Council Members,
The Wilmont Board of Directors strongly endorses the extension of the Interim Zoning Ordinance 2569 (CCS)
for Interim Changes to Development Standards in the R1 Zoning District Pending Adoption of Permanent
Revisions to the R1 Development Standards.
We recommend the extension to November 2019 and support that the Interim Zoning Ordinance because of the
following: 1) better supports the privacy of adjoining properties 2) better supports the keeping of trees and
green scape 3) better supports the access to sunlight and sea breezes and 4) better keeps the heights and size of
new construction in proportion to neighboring homes. We support the use of incentives or disincentives to
encourage rehabilitation and adaptive use vs. demotion of older-single family homes.
As well, we believe this is an appropriate time to support our net energy goal for new construction and look to
ensure that properties in the City are protected by a City solar "shadow" ordinance. This ordinance will enable
the ability of energy sustainability of our residential neighborhoods' properties as well as commercial properties.
Thank-you for your effort and focus on this issue.
Best,
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
For Wilmont Board of Directors
Item 7-B
03/27/18
12 of 20 Item 7-B
03/27/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Clerk Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:11 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Extending R1 Interim Development Standards, 3/2718 Agenda Item 7-B
From: Tricia Crane [mailto:1triciacrane@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:00 AM
To: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <emvandenburgh@gmail.com>
Cc: councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown
<Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Pam OConnor
<Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>; Tony Vazquez <Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich
<Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>;
David Martin <David.Martin@SMGOV.NET>; Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Reinhard Kargl
<reinhardka@aol.com>; Deborah Roetman <debrmail@gmail.com>; betzi richardson <betzir77@yahoo.com>; Rosemary
Sostarich <r.sostarich@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Extending R1 Interim Development Standards, 3/2718 Agenda Item 7‐B
Thanks for sharing this Elizabeth.
Tricia
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Elizabeth Van Denburgh <emvandenburgh@gmail.com> wrote:
Mayor Winterer and City Council Members,
The Wilmont Board of Directors strongly endorses the extension of the Interim Zoning Ordinance 2569 (CCS)
for Interim Changes to Development Standards in the R1 Zoning District Pending Adoption of Permanent
Revisions to the R1 Development Standards.
We recommend the extension to November 2019 and support that the Interim Zoning Ordinance because of the
following: 1) better supports the privacy of adjoining properties 2) better supports the keeping of trees and
green scape 3) better supports the access to sunlight and sea breezes and 4) better keeps the heights and size of
new construction in proportion to neighboring homes. We support the use of incentives or disincentives to
encourage rehabilitation and adaptive use vs. demotion of older-single family homes.
As well, we believe this is an appropriate time to support our net energy goal for new construction and look to
ensure that properties in the City are protected by a City solar "shadow" ordinance. This ordinance will enable
the ability of energy sustainability of our residential neighborhoods' properties as well as commercial
properties.
Thank-you for your effort and focus on this issue.
Best,
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
For Wilmont Board of Directors
Item 7-B
03/27/18
13 of 20 Item 7-B
03/27/18
2
Item 7-B
03/27/18
14 of 20 Item 7-B
03/27/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:20 AM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Tony Vazquez
Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Anuj Gupta; David Martin
Subject:FW: R-1 Zone - Interim Zoning Ordinance No. 2569
Council‐
Please see the below email regarding the extension of the R1 interim zoning ordinance.
Thanks,
Stephanie
From: Jim Hartung [mailto:jimhartung@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:55 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: R‐1 Zone ‐ Interim Zoning Ordinance No. 2569
Mr. Mayor and Council Members,
In connection with the referenced Interim Zoning Ordinance (IZO) that was adopted on
February 13, 2018, became effective on March 16, 2018, and is set to expire 60
thereafter on May 15, 2018, I urge you to extend the term of the IZO for an additional
18 months.
My wife and I bought our modest home in Santa Monica in 1976. It is where we have
raised our children, made close friendships with many of our neighbors, and been
active as volunteers at our children’s schools, youth sports, and a variety of community
organizations. We were drawn to the unique character and diversity of the Santa
Monica neighborhoods. Sadly, our neighborhood and the other R-1 neighborhoods
throughout Santa Monica have been negatively impacted by a perfect storm of
outsized development during the current economic recovery. These negative issues
have included the unprecedented numbers of demolitions of small to medium sized
homes of varying architecture and eras plus the construction of new homes and major
remodels that are simply out of scale in the R-1 neighborhoods aka Mansionization.
The proposed changes related to the IZO are needed to reign in the construction of
oversized homes in our R-1 neighborhoods. We now live next door to a home that was
built to the limit of allowed square footage and is clearly out of scale to the land parcel
it sits on. Between porches and second floor windows looking into our windows and
backyard, we have lost our privacy. There are days when the movement of refreshing
Item 7-B
03/27/18
15 of 20 Item 7-B
03/27/18
2
breezes into our home and backyard has been negatively affected. We have been
hesitant to install solar panels on our south facing roof given the likelihood of our
neighbor’s home being demolished and another gigantic home being built that would
envelop our home in shadow. We are not unique nor are we alone regarding these
issues. This development nightmare is playing out all over Santa Monica.
My wife and I call upon you to do the right thing and extend the Interim Zoning
Ordinance. Thank you for your time and attention to our request.
Sincerely,
James and Candice Hartung
444 15th Street
Santa Monica, California 90402
Item 7-B
03/27/18
16 of 20 Item 7-B
03/27/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Stacy Dalgleish <sdalgleish@mac.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 27, 2018 1:17 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Tony
Vazquez; Sue Himmelrich; Ted Winterer; Terry O’Day
Cc:David Martin; Clerk Mailbox; Rick Cole
Subject:Extending R1 Interim Development Standards, 3/2718 Agenda Item 7-B
Dear City Council,
I support the intention of Council to protect neighborhoods from overdevelopment and applaud your extension of the
Interim Development Standards for R‐1 zoning to YE 2019.
Thank you as always for your service to our wonderful town.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Stacy
Stacy Dalgleish
> On Mar 27, 2018, at 10:05 AM, Elizabeth Van Denburgh <emvandenburgh@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mayor Winterer and City Council Members,
>
> The Wilmont Board of Directors strongly endorses the extension of the Interim Zoning Ordinance 2569 (CCS) for
Interim Changes to Development Standards in the R1 Zoning District Pending Adoption of Permanent Revisions to the R1
Development Standards.
>
> We recommend the extension to November 2019 and support that the Interim Zoning Ordinance because of the
following: 1) better supports the privacy of adjoining properties 2) better supports the keeping of trees and green scape
3) better supports the access to sunlight and sea breezes and 4) better keeps the heights and size of new construction in
proportion to neighboring homes. We support the use of incentives or disincentives to encourage rehabilitation and
adaptive use vs. demotion of older‐single family homes.
>
> As well, we believe this is an appropriate time to support our net energy goal for new construction and look to ensure
that properties in the City are protected by a City solar "shadow" ordinance. This ordinance will enable the ability of
energy sustainability of our residential neighborhoods' properties as well as commercial properties.
>
> Thank‐you for your effort and focus on this issue.
>
> Best,
> Elizabeth Van Denburgh
> For Wilmont Board of Directors
>
>
Item 7-B
03/27/18
17 of 20 Item 7-B
03/27/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, March 27, 2018 2:21 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Council Agenda Item 7-B (R1 IZO extension to Nov 2019)
Attachments:Forwarded Message
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Coalition for a Livable City [mailto:info@smclc.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 1:35 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: David Martin <David.Martin@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>; Lane Dilg
<Lane.Dilg@SMGOV.NET>; Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Pam OConnor <Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>;
Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Tony Vazquez
<Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Kevin.McKeown@mckeown.net; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Ted
Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Council Agenda Item 7‐B (R1 IZO extension to Nov 2019)
Dear City Council,
SMCLC urges you to extend this R1 IZO to November 2019 for all of the reasons we previously raised in our 1.22.18 letter
below and for the reasons given in the staff report: “Extending the applicability of the interim development standards
for the R1 district would ensure that the opportunity to protect the City’s unique and diverse neighborhoods is not lost
while a comprehensive review of the R1 standards is underway.”
Sincerely,
Diana Gordon for SMCLC
Item 7-B
03/27/18
18 of 20 Item 7-B
03/27/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Kathy Knight <kathyknight66@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 27, 2018 2:29 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:3/27/18 Agenda Item 7-B
March 23, 2018
To: City Council
From: Kathy Knight,
25 year resident of Sunset Park
(310) 613-1175
RE: 3/27/18 agenda item 7-B:
Introduction for First Reading of an Interim Ordinance Extending Interim Zoning Ordinance 2569 (CCS) for
Interim Changes to Development Standards in the R1 Zoning District Pending Adoption of Permanent
Revisions to the R1 Development Standards
I strongly support the extension to November 2019 of the Interim Zoning Ordinance which
reduces maximum lot coverage for 2-story single family homes from a total of 61% to 50%.
I agree with the reasons our neighborhood association, Friends of Sunset Park, has given for
supporting the IZO that were laid out in their February 10, 2018 letter to the City Council.
Existing homes continue to be demolished in Sunset Park and replaced with very large new
homes, and there seem to be dozens of demolition permits pending. These monstrous buildings
change the whole feeling in our neighborhood and are being built with no yards or tiny back
yards. There is alot of concrete/stucco and very little vegetation and trees which increases
global warming. Having a back yard with soil, plants, and trees is much more of a cooling
influence.
Some of these monstrous projects actually look like they belong in an industrial/business district of downtown
LA.
Thank you for your consideration.
Item 7-B
03/27/18
19 of 20 Item 7-B
03/27/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Clerk Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, March 27, 2018 2:45 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Council Agenda Item 7-B (R1 IZO extension to Nov 2019)
Attachments:Forwarded Message
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Coalition for a Livable City [mailto:info@smclc.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 1:35 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: David Martin <David.Martin@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>; Lane Dilg
<Lane.Dilg@SMGOV.NET>; Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Pam OConnor <Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>;
Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Tony Vazquez
<Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Kevin.McKeown@mckeown.net; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Ted
Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Council Agenda Item 7‐B (R1 IZO extension to Nov 2019)
Dear City Council,
SMCLC urges you to extend this R1 IZO to November 2019 for all of the reasons we previously raised in our 1.22.18 letter
below and for the reasons given in the staff report: “Extending the applicability of the interim development standards
for the R1 district would ensure that the opportunity to protect the City’s unique and diverse neighborhoods is not lost
while a comprehensive review of the R1 standards is underway.”
Sincerely,
Diana Gordon for SMCLC
Item 7-B
03/27/18
20 of 20 Item 7-B
03/27/18
REFERENCE:
Ordinance No. 2569
(CCS)