SR 05-22-2018 7C
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 22, 2018
Agenda Item: 7.C
1 of 9
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, City Planning
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Zoning
Ordinance Making Changes, Corrections, and Clarifications to the Zoning
Ordinance Related to Policy Issues That Have Arisen Since the Adoption of
the Zoning Ordinance Through Its Implementation
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance
amending the City’s Zoning Ordinance making changes, corrections, and clarifications
to the Zoning Ordinance related to policy issues that have arisen since the adoption of
the Zoning Ordinance through its implementation.
Executive Summary
Since the adoption of a new Zoning Ordinance to set development standards citywide in
July 2015 and through its implementation, City Planning staff has identified a number of
policy issues that require changes, corrections, or clarifications. The City Council
already approved a number of minor policy changes, corrections, and clarifications
earlier in 2017. The proposed changes identified in this report are intended to provide
clarification of standards, improve and update regulations, and eliminate any potential
confusion in the application of standards without significantly altering the intent of
standards and regulations within the Zoning Ordinance. Further, there are three areas
where amendments are proposed to provide more clarity and flexibility with respect to
key issues that have arisen in implementation of the zoning ordinance including the
appropriate maximum size of accessory dwelling units, space-efficient parking, and
street wall height. This report provides a summary of the key changes being proposed
in these policy areas in addition to providing more background on the Planning
Commission’s recommendation regarding an amendment to support code enforcement
efforts.
2 of 9
Background
On June 23, 2015, the City Council adopted a new Zoning Ordinance that became
effective on July 24, 2015. Since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and through its
implementation to date, staff has identified unintentional errors, inconsistencies, or
omissions that require minor clerical changes, corrections, or clarifications as well as
policy issues that require further discussion and analysis.
On May 24, 2016, June 28, 2016 and February 14, 2017, following Planning
Commission review and recommendations, the City Council adopted Ordinances
making the minor clerical changes, corrections, and clarifications.
On August 2, 2017, the Planning Commission preliminarily discussed the second
category of Zoning Ordinance policy issues that have arisen since adoption and
implementation of the Zoning Ordinance. This took place in advance of formal
consideration of these policy issues and in advance of making a formal
recommendation to the City Council. After this preliminary discussion, the Commission
split these policy issues into two groups, of which the Council approved the first group of
policy item changes at its December 5, 2017 meeting.
Discussion
On April 18, 2018, after review and discussion of the proposed amendments for the
second group of Zoning Ordinance policy item changes, the Planning Commission
voted 5-0 (2 absent) to adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve
these proposed changes, corrections, and clarifications to the Zoning Ordinance. The
Planning Commission reviewed and endorsed the proposed redline changes as drafted
without any modifications. However, the Commission expressed their desire to highlight
two proposed amendments regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and code enforcement,
which are further discussed below.
The proposed changes identified in this report are intended to provide clarification of
standards, improve and update regulations, and eliminate any potential confusion in the
application of standards. The changes do not significantly alter the standards and
3 of 9
regulations within the Zoning Ordinance. The specific changes, corrections, and
clarifications are detailed in the attached Proposed Redline Modifications (Attachment
A) along with brief explanations for each change, correction, and clarification
(Attachment B).
For each of the topics, this report summarizes in Attachment B the policy topic, purpose
of each standard, how the issue was brought to staff’s attention, and what the clarifying
language will do.
Street Wall Height
The concept of requiring minimum and maximum first-story street wall heights in certain
districts was to provide pedestrian-oriented ground floor design, allow for variety of
commercial uses on ground floor, and provide a consistent design pattern along
commercial streets. The first-story street wall height standard is currently required in the
Commercial and Mixed-Use districts, the Employment districts, and the Oceanfront
district. Architects and developers have found the standard to be challenging to meet for
parcels with unique sloping conditions and for prospective smaller buildings with limited
stories. The Architectural Review Board has also commented that the first-story street
wall height standard creates challenges for a pedestrian-scaled ground floor and odd
proportions compared with a building’s upper floors.
In order to address this challenge and provide consistency with the standards in the
recently adopted Downtown Community Plan, staff proposes eliminating the first story
street wall height requirements and utilizing minimum ground floor floor-to-floor heights
instead. In addition, creating a standard defining the maximum allowable separation
between the ground floor level and the adjacent finished grade facing a commercial
boulevard with no relation to technical definition of building stories seeks to maintain a
relevant ground floor pedestrian orientation and active commercial design along the
commercial boulevards. This standard would vary slightly between non-sloping ground-
floor street frontages along commercial boulevards and sloped ground-floor street
frontages along commercial boulevards in order to provide a little more flexibility for
sloped sites. Allowing for the ability to apply for a Major Modification from the minimum
4 of 9
and maximum ground floor floor-to-floor heights provides additional flexibility from these
standards. The Planning Commission as well as members of the public supported these
changes.
Space-Efficient Parking
Given the advancements in both the technology and reliability of mechanical parking
systems, staff believes it is appropriate to explore providing flexibility for use of these
systems. As a result, the proposed Code amendments to Section 9.28.090 are intended
to regulate three broad types of space-efficient parking: tandem parking, mechanical
tandem parking such as stackers, and fully automated systems that are independently
accessible (i.e. do not require moving a vehicle by human power for access).
A requirement for a parking attendant was included for all space-efficient parking with
the exception of residential projects with two or fewer units, or when tandem spaces are
assigned to the same dwelling unit. Parking Attendants are also not required when it is
demonstrated that mechanical parking systems can be operated by the end user or
when the tandem parking does not exceed 25 percent of total parking for nonresidential
uses.
A Parking and Loading Operation Plan is required with limited exception, and is
intended to ensure the parking is managed in a way that allows adequate access to
vehicles and to minimize the impacts to the public right-of-way.
A queuing space requirement was added to ensure that staging space is provided for
vehicles to wait on private property prior to parking entry. Both the queuing space and
attendant requirements may be reduced when technical study supports the reduction.
Technical study is also required when Automated Parking Systems serve high-turnover
land uses to ensure the provision of some short term parking to allow quick access and
retrieval of vehicles. Nonoperation provisions were added to ensure that vehicles may
enter or be removed from automated parking systems in case of power outage or
system failure.
5 of 9
The proposed changes provide enhanced flexibility for the use of space-efficient parking
in all project types. This would allow parking area to occupy less space in projects
providing additional area for residential and commercial uses. Providing more flexibility
is tempered by the requirement of attendant services and on-site queuing spaces to
limit impacts to the public right-of-way. The proposed changes would also allow tandem
parking for residential projects and allow the use of mechanical systems such as
stackers and automobile turntables for Single-Unit Dwellings. Parking and Loading
Operations Plans would allow the City to assess proposals on a case-by-case basis
prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Planning Commission was supportive of
the proposed changes.
Accessory Dwelling Units
Through the course of updating the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) standards in the
Zoning Ordinance to make them consistent with recent changes to State law, the
Commission had expressed interest in revisiting the maximum size standards for ADUs.
The purpose of the ADU maximum size standard is to limit the size of ADUs and ensure
they are accessory to the primary residences, and to protect the character of single-unit
residential districts. Recent changes in State ADU law are intended to address barriers,
streamline approvals, and expand potential capacity for ADUs.
The proposed changes in the ADU standards in the SMMC attempt to balance all of
these goals. The proposed changes separate the ADU standards in SMMC Section
9.31.300 from the Accessory Building and Structures standards found in SMMC Section
9.21.020 to avoid any confusion and conflicts between the standards. Currently, the
Zoning Ordinance cross-references both sets of standards in both sections of the
Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed changes increase the maximum size of ADUs to 1,200 square feet and
increase the maximum size of a second story of an ADU from 250 square feet to 400
square feet. In reaching this proposal, the Commission discussed recent state guidance
as well as the State’s maximum ADU size of 1,200 square feet. The Planning
Commission supported a change in maximum ADU size to 1,200 feet but also
6 of 9
recommended that other areas of the law that allow local control including, but not
limited to, ADU height, setbacks, second story size, and parcel coverage be reviewed
as part of the forthcoming effort to review and update the R1 Single-Unit Residential
development standards.
In Santa Monica, the average size of ADUs submitted for plan check has on average
over the last year been between 350-550 square feet, but this is a result of most ADUs
being created through the conversion of existing garages and accessory buildings as
opposed to new construction. A number of inquiries from the public have been received
about the construction of potential new ADUs of approximately 800 square feet, but few
building permit applications of this size for new ADUs have been submitted so far.
Under State law, a city can set a maximum ADU size of up to 1,200 square feet
however, the maximum ADU size must not unreasonably burden or restrict ADU
development. Typical maximum ADU sizes, according to written guidance from the
Department of Housing and Community Development, range from 800 to 1,200 square
feet. In other local jurisdictions, maximum ADU size varies, with many cities allowing a
maximum size of 1,200 square feet; some cities allowing the lesser of 1,200 square feet
or some percentage of the size of the existing primary residence; and some cities
limiting maximum ADU size to between 500 – 800 square feet.
Staff concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. With regards to
potential concerns about ADU size, there is a requirement that an ADU be clearly
subordinate to the main dwelling unit in terms of size, location, and appearance [SMMC
Section 9.31.300(G)(1)], which should ensure that ADU size is still in keeping with
neighborhood character while allowing flexibility for additional housing.
Code Enforcement
SMMC Section 9.48.010(A) states the following:
No person shall establish, operate, erect, move, alter, enlarge or maintain any
use, activity, or improvement in contravention of any provision of Article 9 of the
7 of 9
Municipal Code, including any General, Area, or Specific Plans incorporated by
this Article 9.
This provision identifies the various actions related to the Zoning Ordinance that are
subject to enforcement procedures. Previous code compliance cases have involved
property owners attempting to deflect responsibility of a tenant’s code violation and
failure to compel the tenant to comply by arguing their lack of knowledge of particular
regulations. Staff has interpreted “maintain” to mean “allow”, however; in recent appeals
of short-term rental enforcement actions, the hearing officer has disagreed with staff’s
interpretation. Adding the word “allow” to the list of actions in this section in intended to
clarify already existing enforcement policy and seeks to prevent continual violations of
regulations by tenants and hold property owners responsible.
A member of the Planning Commission expressed concerns about holding a third party
responsible for someone else’s action, particularly in a landlord/tenant relationship, and
any potential unintended consequences that may result. However, throughout the City’s
past enforcement of the Municipal Code using parallel provisions, there has been no
indication that the enforcement provisions have had any unintended consequences on
tenant/landlord relationships. The proposed addition of the word “allow” is particularly
necessary to adequately enforce illegal short-term rentals in the effort to protect
affordable housing. In consultation with the City Attorney’s Office, it was determined that
the proposed change would help achieve this goal as well as provide a broad ability to
enforce safety and nuisance violations such as electrical hazards and noise issues.
Adding the word “allow” would also clarify the provisions for Administrative Hearing
Officers.
Staff Recommendation
The attached ordinance (Attachment I) recommends that the Council amend the Zoning
Ordinance making changes, corrections, and clarifications to the Zoning Ordinance
related to policy issues that have arisen since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance
through its implementation.
8 of 9
Over the next several months, the Planning Commission will discuss potential new
policy directions related to the Zoning Ordinance with the anticipation that the
Commission will consider potential code changes that may affect previous policy
decisions prior to Council consideration.
Environmental Analysis
The proposed changes, corrections, and clarifications to the Zoning Ordinance related
to policy issues that have arisen since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance through its
implementation are 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 changes may have a significant
effect on the environment. The recommended modifications represent changes,
corrections, and clarifications to the Zoning Ordinance related to policy issues that have
arisen since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance through its implementation and that
do not substantively affect policy decisions made with the City Council’s adoption of the
Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, no further environmental review under CEQA is required.
Text Amendment Findings
1. The Ordinance amendments are consistent in principle with the General Plan, in
that the amendments do not substantively affect policy decisions made with the
City Council’s adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and represent minor changes,
corrections, and clarifications to the standards and regulations within the Zoning
Ordinance.
2. The Ordinance amendments are consistent with the purpose of this Ordinance to
promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner and to promote and protect
the public health, safety, and general welfare, in that the amendments maintain
the existing policies, standards, and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance that
promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare.
9 of 9
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action.
Prepared By: Tony Kim, Principal Planner
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Proposed Redline Modifications
B. Policy Redline Explanations
C. June 23, 2015 Council Staff Report (web link)
D. May 24, 2016 Council Staff Report (web link)
E. June 28, 2016 Council Staff Report (web link)
F. February 14, 2017 Council Staff Report (web link)
G. December 5, 2017 Council Staff Report (web link)
H. April 18, 2018 Planning Commission Staff Report (web link)
I. Ordinance
J. Written Comments
1
ATTACHMENT A
(Proposed Redline Modifications)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
AS RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 22, 2018
16. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.11.030 (p. 2.53):
Standard MUBL MUB
GC
(Santa
Monica
Blvd)
GC
(Lincoln
& Pico
Blvd)
NC
NC
(Main
Street)
NC
(Ocean
Park
Blvd &
Montana
Ave)
Additional
Regulations
Minimum First
Story Street
Wall Height
15’ 15’ 15’ 15’ 15’ 15’ 15’
Maximum First
Story Street
Wall Height
20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’
Minimum
Ground Floor
Height
11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’
Maximum
Ground Floor
Height
16’ 16’ 16’ 16’ 16’ 16’ 16’
Standard MUBL MUB
GC
(Santa
Monica
Blvd)
GC
(Lincoln
& Pico
Blvd)
NC
NC
(Main
Street)
NC
(Ocean
Park
Blvd &
Montana
Ave)
Additional
Regulations
Minimum Upper-Story Stepbacks (ft.) – Required Above Maximum First Story Street Wall Height Ground
Floor Height
Street
Facing
Facades
5’
average
5’
average
5’
average
5’
average
5’
average
5’
average
5’
average
A. Active Ground Floor Design and Use.
1. Active Commercial Design. The ground-floor street frontage of new buildings on
commercial boulevards shall be designed to accommodate commercial uses and
activities, subject to the following:
a. A minimum average depth of 40 feet, but in no case less than 25 feet, for
a minimum of 60% of the ground-floor frontage.
b. Minimum Floor-to-Floor Heights:
i. 1511 feet in all districts.
(1) Ground-Floor Street Frontages Along Commercial
Boulevards. The finished ground floor level along the
commercial boulevard shall not exceed 18” lower or
higher than the finished grade of the adjacent sidewalk.
(2) Sloped Ground-Floor Street Frontages Along Commercial
Boulevards. On parcels with a grade change of 10% or
2
more along the length of the parcel line adjacent to the
commercial boulevard, the finished ground floor level
along the commercial boulevard shall not exceed 18”
lower or 3’ higher than the finished grade of the adjacent
sidewalk.
(3) Corner Parcels. For corner parcels located at the
intersection of two commercial boulevards, the
requirements of subsection (A)(1) shall apply to the
ground-floor street frontages along both commercial
boulevards.
ii. Loft spaces built within this area shall not exceed 30% of the total
floor area of the space consistent with the definition of mezzanine.
Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.13.030 (p. 2.68):
Standard IC OC* HMU
Additional
Regulations
Minimum Ground-Floor (floor-to-floor) Height
(ft.)for Frontages on a Boulevard 1211’ 1211’ NA
Maximum Ground-Floor (floor-to-floor) Height
for Frontages on a Boulevard 16’ 16’ NA
Minimum First Story Street Wall Height for
Frontages on a Boulevard (ft.) 12 12 NA
Maximum First Story Street Wall Height for
Frontages on a Boulevard (ft.) 20 20 NA
Minimum Upper-Story Stepbacks (ft.)—Required Above Maximum First Story Street Wall Height Ground
Floor Height
Street-Facing Façades 5’
average
5’
average
5’
average
NA
Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.14.030 (p. 2.76):
Standard OF Additional Regulations
Minimum Ground Floor
(floor-to-floor) Height for
Non-Residential Uses
15’11’
Maximum Ground Floor
(floor-to-floor) Height for
Non-Residential Uses
16’
Minimum First Story
Street Wall Height 15’
Maximum First Story
Street Wall Height 20’
Standard OF Additional Regulations
Minimum Upper-Story Stepbacks (ft.)—Required Above Maximum First Story Street Wall Height Ground
Floor Height
3
Standard OF Additional Regulations
Street-Facing Facades
At least thirty percent of the building elevation
above the maximum first story street wall
height ground floor height shall provide an
additional five-foot average setback from the
minimum required front yard setback.
A. Active Commercial Design. The ground-floor street frontage of buildings on commercial
boulevards intended to accommodate commercial uses and activities shall be subject to
the following:
1. A minimum average depth of 40 feet, in no case less than 25 feet, for a minimum
of 60% of the ground-floor frontage.
2. Minimum Floor-to-Floor Heights:
a. A minimum floor-to-floor height of 1511 feet.
(i) Ground-Floor Street Frontages Along Commercial Boulevards.
The finished ground floor level along the commercial boulevard
shall not exceed 18” lower or higher than the finished grade of the
adjacent sidewalk.
(ii) Sloped Ground-Floor Street Frontages Along Commercial
Boulevards. On parcels with a grade change of 10% or more along
the length of the parcel line adjacent to the commercial boulevard,
the finished ground floor level along the commercial boulevard
shall not exceed 18” lower or 3’ higher than the finished grade of
the adjacent sidewalk.
Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.43.030(B) (p. 4.28):
5. Ground Floor (Floor-to-Floor) Height and Minimum First Story Street Wall Height.
a. Minimum. Up to 3 feet1 foot of the required minimum ground floor (floor-to-floor)
height and/or minimum first story street wall height.
b. Maximum. Up to 4 feet of the required maximum ground floor (floor-to-floor) height.
17. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.21.060(A) (p. 3.9):
TABLE 9.21.060: ALLOWED PROJECTIONS ABOVE HEIGHT LIMITS
Structure
Maximum Aggregate
Coverage of Building's Roof
Area (%); Other Locational
Restrictions
Maximum Vertical
Projection (ft.) Above the
Height Limit*
Projections Allowed in All Zoning Districts:
Skylights No limit 1 ft.
Skylights on flat roofs
30%; May not be located
within five feet of any edge
of the roof.
5 ft.
Chimneys, vent stacks 5% 5 ft.
Windscoops 5% 5 ft.
Solar energy systems located on a rooftop See Section 9.21.150 See Section 9.21.150
Antennas
One standard television receive-only
nonparabolic antenna and one vertical
whip antenna
10%; May not be located
between the building and
any street-facing parcel line.
25 ft.
4
TABLE 9.21.060: ALLOWED PROJECTIONS ABOVE HEIGHT LIMITS
Structure
Maximum Aggregate
Coverage of Building's Roof
Area (%); Other Locational
Restrictions
Maximum Vertical
Projection (ft.) Above the
Height Limit*
Other Antennas See Chapter 9.32, Telecommunications Facilities
Parapets, fire escapes, catwalks, and open
guard rails required by law As required by law As required by law
Projections Allowed in All Districts Except R1 and OP-1 Districts:
Non-occupiable features such as steeples,
spires, towers, domes, and cupolas 10% 10 ft.
Rooftop features for outdoor living areas,
such as sunshade, open railings, trellises,
and landscaping
25% 10 ft
Elevator shafts 15% 18 ft.* above the roofline
Stairwells 25% 14 ft.* above the roofline
Mechanical rooms and enclosures 25% 12 ft.* above the roofline
Ventilating fans, water tanks, cooling
towers, or other equipment required to
operate and maintain a building, along with
screening of such equipment required by
Section 9.21.140, Screening
Total area enclosed by all
screening may not exceed
30% of roof area
12 ft.
28. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.31.300 (p. 3.156):
Notwithstanding the Accessory Buildings and Structures standards of Section 9.21.020, Accessory
Dwelling Units shall be developed, located, and operated in accord ance with the following
standards.
A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to:
1. Allow Accessory Dwelling Units as an accessory use to Single--Unit Dwellings,
consistent with California Government Code Section 65852.2, and provide that
accessory dwelling units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which
the accessory dwelling unit is located;
2. Establish that accessory dwelling units are a residential use that is consistent with
the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot upon which it is located;
3. Allow for an increase in the supply of affordable housing in the City; and
4. Maintain the single unit character of neighborhoods in the City.
B. Permit Requirements.
1. Zoning Conformance Review. An Accessory Dwelling Unit that conforms to all
standards of this Section not to exceed 6501,200 square feet of floor area is
permitted by right. A Zoning Conformance Review shall be conducted to verify
compliance with all applicable standards.
C. Location. An Accessory Dwelling Unit may be established on any legal parcel that contains
4,000 square feet or more in any District where a primary Single Unit Dwelling has been
previously established or is proposed to be established in conjunction with construction of
the Accessory Dwelling Unit. Only one Accessory Dwelling Unit is permitted per parcel.
D. Type of Unit and Relation to Main Dwelling. The Accessory Dwelling Unit shall provide
separate, independent living quarters for one household. The Accessory Dwelling Unit may
be attached, detached, or located within the living area of the primary Single--Unit Dwelling
on the parcel, subject to the standards of this Section. A detached Accessory Dwelling Unit
shall be considered part of the primary Single-Unit Dwelling if the Accessory Dwelling Unit
5
is located less than 6 feet from the primary Single-Unit Dwelling or if connected to it by fully
enclosed space.
E. Conversion or Demolition of Existing Structures.
1. Garage Conversions. Conversion of all or a portion of a garage to an Accessory
Dwelling Unit is permitted, provided that alternate parking for the primary dwelling
is provided that meets the requirements of Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and
Circulation, and the District within which the parcel is located. Notwithstanding
Chapter 9.28, such alternate parking may be located in any configuration on the
same lot as the Accessory Dwelling Unit, including, but not limited to, as covered
spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical
automobile parking lifts. No setback shall be required for an existing garage that is
converted to an Accessory Dwelling Unit, and a setback of five feet from the side
and rear property lines shall be required for an Accessory Dwelling Unit that is
constructed above a garage.
2. Demolition of Existing Structure. When an existing garage, carport, or covered
parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an
Accessory Dwelling Unit, alternate parking for the primary dwelling shall be
provided in a form that meets the requirements of Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading,
and Circulation and the District within which the parcel is located. Notwithstanding
Chapter 9.28, such alternate parking may be located in any configuration on the
same lot as the Accessory Dwelling Unit, including, but not limited to, as covered
spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical
automobile parking lifts.
3. Conversion of Existing Floor Area of the Main Dwelling. The creation of an
Accessory Dwelling Unit through conversion of part of the existing floor area of the
mainprimary Single-Unit dDwelling shall be allowed, provided it has independent
exterior access from the existing primary Single-Unit Dwelling and does not result
in the floor area of the mainprimary dwelling being less than 150 percent of the
floor area of the Accessory Dwelling Unit, or in violation of the standards of the
California Building Code.
4. Conversion of an Existing House to an Accessory Dwelling Unit. In cases in
which an existing Single Unit Dwelling has an area 6501,200 square feet or less,
the Review Authority may approve the construction of one additional residence
that is intended to be the primary residence (a Single--Unit Dwelling) on the
property. The existing residence, which is intended to become the lawful
Accessory Dwelling Unit, must comply with all the requirements of this Section.
The primary residence shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of
the applicable District standards and other requirements of this Ordinance.
5. Conversion on an Existing Accessory Building to an Accessory Dwelling
Unit. Notwithstanding Subsection (F), the conversion of an existing accessory
building up to 1,200 square feet of floor area, including, but not limited to, a studio,
pool house, or other similar structure to an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be
allowed if the unit is contained within the existing space of the accessory building,
has independent exterior access from the existing primary Single -Unit Dwelling,
and the side and rear setbacks of the Accessory Dwelling Unit are sufficient for fire
safety.
F. Development Standards. An Accessory Dwelling Unit shall conform to the height,
setbacks, parcel coverage, and other zoning requirements of the District in which it is
located, other requirements of this Ordinance, and other applicable City codes, except as
provided in this Section.
1. Attached Accessory Dwelling Units. An Accessory Dwelling Unit that is attached
to the primary dwelling shall comply with all the property development standards
for the primary dwelling.
2. Detached Accessory Dwelling Units Up to 14 Feet in Height. A detached
Accessory Dwelling Unit located within a new or existing one story accessory
structure up to 14 feet in height or within additions to existing accessory structures
6
up to 14 feet in height shall comply with all the following requirements: applicable
to one-story accessory structures up to 14 feet in height in Section 9.21.020,
Accessory Buildings and Structures, unless it is located within a new or existing
accessory structure over one story or 14 feet in height, upon which it shall comply
with all requirements applicable to accessory structures over one story or 14 feet
in height in Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings and Structures.
a. Location.
i. An Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be located on the rear half of the
parcel and shall not extend into the required minimum side yard
setback except as authorized pursuant to subsection (E) above.
ii. An Accessory Dwelling Unit may be located in the rear setback
but shall be located at least 5 feet from the rear parcel line.
iii. On a reverse corner parcel, an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not
be located nearer to the street side parcel line of such corner
parcel than ½ of the front setback depth required on the key
parcel, nor be located nearer than 5 feet to the side parcel line of
any key parcel.
iv. Any Accessory Dwelling Unit on a through parcel shall not project
into any front setback and shall not be located in any required side
setback.
b. Maximum Floor Area. The total floor area of an Accessory Dwelling Unit
up to 14 feet in height shall not exceed 1,200 square feet.
c. Maximum Building Height. The Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not exceed
one story or 14 feet in height.
3. Detached Accessory Dwelling Units Over One Story or 14 Feet in Height . A
detached Accessory Dwelling Unit located within a new accessory structure over
one story or 14 feet in height or within additions to existing accessory structures
over one story or 14 feet in height shall comply with all the following requirements:
a. Location.
i. An Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be located on the rear half of the
parcel and shall not extend into the required minimum side yard
setback except as authorized pursuant to subsection (E) above.
ii. An Accessory Dwelling Unit may be located in the rear setback
but shall be located at least 5 feet from the rear parcel line. The
second story portion of an Accessory Dwelling Unit may extend
into the required rear setback but shall be no closer than 15 feet
from the centerline of the alley or 15 feet from the rear property
line where no alley exists.
iii. An Accessory Dwelling Unit shall have the same minimum side
setback requirement as the principal building on the parcel, but in
no case less than 5 feet.
iv. On a reverse corner parcel, an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not
be located nearer to the street side parcel line of such corner
parcel than ½ of the front setback depth required on the key
parcel, nor be located nearer than 5 feet to the side parcel line of
any key parcel.
v. Any Accessory Dwelling Unit on a through parcel shall not project
into any front setback and shall not be located in any required side
setback.
b. Maximum Floor Area. The total floor area of an Accessory Dwelling Unit
that exceeds one story or 14 feet in height shall not exceed 1,200 square
feet.
i. No Accessory Dwelling Unit or portion of an Accessory Dwelling
Unit shall exceed 400 square feet on the second story.
ii. The second story of an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not exceed
the floor area of the first story.
7
c. Maximum Building Height. The Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not exceed
two stories or 24 feet in height.
d. Exterior Features. Roof decks, landings, upper level walkways, and
balconies shall not exceed 35 square feet in area and must be set back
at least 25 feet from the side property line closest to the structure, and at
least 25 feet from the rear property line, or if an alley exists, 25 feet from
the centerline of the alley.
G. Design Standards. The exterior design of the Accessory Dwelling Unit, including building
forms, materials, colors, exterior finishes, and landscaping, shall be compatible with the
primary sSingle--uUnit dDwelling.
1. The Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be clearly subordinate to the main dwelling unit
on the parcel in terms of size, location, and appearance.
2. The entrance to the Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not be on the front or street side
setback unless it is a shared entrance with the primary unit.
H. Parking.
1. Required Parking. One on-site parking space, which may be unenclosed, shall
be provided for the Accessory Dwelling Unit. This space shall comply with all
development standards set forth in Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and
Circulation, and the requirements for the District. A tandem parking space may
also be used to meet the parking requirement for the Accessory Dwelling Unit and
may be provided on an existing driveway. Required parking for the primary Single-
-Unit Dwelling may not be removed for the creation of an Accessory Dwelling Unit
or allocated to meet the parking requirement for the Accessory Dwelling Unit
unless replacement parking is provided in accord with this Ordinance.
2. Exemptions. Notwithstanding any other parking required by this Section or
Chapter 9.28 of this Ordinance, no parking spaces shall be required for an
Accessory Dwelling Unit in any of the following instances:
a. The Accessory Dwelling Unit is located within one-half mile of public
transit;
b. The Accessory Dwelling Unit is an individually designated historic
resource or is located within an architecturally and historically significant
historic district;
c. The Accessory Dwelling Unit is part of the existing primary residence or
an existing accessory structure;
d. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the
occupant of the Accessory Dwelling Unit; or
e. When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the
Accessory Dwelling Unit.
I. Owner Occupancy, Rental, and Sale Limitations. Either the primary Single--Unit
Dwelling or the Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be owner-occupied. Either unit may be
rented, but both may not be rented at the same time. An Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not
be offered for sale separately from the primary dwelling unit . The primary Single--Unit
Dwelling or the Accessory Dwelling Unit shall only be offered for residential occupancy for
more than thirty (30) days.
30. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.48.010(A) (p. 4.50):
A. No person shall establish, operate, erect, move, alter, enlarge, allow, or maintain any use,
activity, or improvement in contravention of any provision of Article 9 of the Municipal Code,
including any General, Area, or Specific Plans incorporated by this Article 9.
35. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.31.040(D) (p. 3.117):
2. With respect to the Director’s decision for Alcohol Exemption Zoning Conformance Permits
for restaurants with over 50 seats, within two business days from the date when the
determination has been made concerning the application and posted on the City’s website,
8
the Director shall transmit a notice of determination that summarizes the determination and
provides a website link to the Statement of Official Action to the applicant at the address
shown on the application and to all property owners and residentia l and commercial tenants
within a radius of 750 feet from the exterior boundaries of the property involved in the
application. The applicant or any property owners and residential and commercial tenants
within a radius of 750 feet from the exterior boundaries of the property involved in the
application may appeal the decision to the Planning Commission following the procedures
set forth in Section 9.37.130(B-D) and subject to the findings of Section 9.31.040(C).
36. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.37.070(D) (p. 4.9):
1. With respect to Director decisions, within two business days from the date when the
determination has been made concerning the application and posted on the City’s website,
the Director shall transmit the statement of official action to the applicant at the address
shown on the application, to all individuals who testified at the public hearing on the
application, to all individuals who submitted written comments prior to or at the public
hearing, and to other individuals who provided written notice that they wished to receive
the statement of official action for this item.
37. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.43.030 (p. 4.29):
C. If the application for a Major Modification involves a project that includes the retention and
preservation of a structure or improvement that is a City-Designated Historic Resource, the
Director may grant relief from maximum building height, maximum number of stories,
required setbacks, maximum parcel coverage and building envelope requirements;
permitted building height projections; permitted projections in required yard areas; access
to private open space; landscaping; and provision of unexcavated yard areas .
38. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.08.030(A)(1) (p. 2.23):
f. Beach Rear Yard Setback. Twenty-five feet.Fifteen feet for parcels one hundred feet or
less in depth and fifty-five feet for parcels over one hundred feet in depth.
39. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.08.030(A)(1) (p. 2.24):
m. Projections into Beach Rear Yard Setback. For parcels one hundred feet or less in
depth, balconies, decks, porches, and similar structures that are open and unenclosed on
at least two sides shall be allowed to extend to the rear property line in the beach rear yard
setback but not within the minimum side yard setbacks.
9
40. Modify the following figure in SMMC Section 9.28.050 (p. 3.69):
FIGURE 9.28.050: PARKING OVERLAY AREAS
10
41/42. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.090 (p. 3.81):
Space-efficient parking is parking in which vehicles are stored and accessed by valet, mechanical
stackers or lifts, automated parking systems, certain tandem spaces, or other space-efficient
means. Parking spaces may be either independently accessible or space-efficient as described
below, except for spaces required and specifically designated for persons with physical disabilities
unless designed in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
A. Applicability. Space-efficient parking is encouraged and may be used in all Districts
pursuant to Section 9.28.060 if the applicant demonstrates that all parking can be
accommodated by the means chosen subject to the requirements of this Section 9.28.090.
B. Qualifying as Independently Accessible. Parking spaces in mechanical parking
structures that allow a vehicle to be accessed without having to move another vehicle under
its own power shall be deemed to be independently accessible. Parking spaces that are
accessed by a valet attendant and have availability of attendant service at all times shall
be deemed to be independently accessible.
CB.. MechanicalAutomated and ValetTandem Parking.
All parking may be stored and accessed by automated parking systems, mechanical
stackers, tandem, or other space-efficient means at the discretion of the City through the
approval of a Parking and Loading Operations Plan. The plan shall include information
required by the Director to understand the proposed parking operations and other
information determined by the Director to be necessary. Submittal of technical studies may
also be required.
1. Tandem Parking Access. Tandem parking shall not require more than 1 car to
move under its own power to access the desired parking space and must be
managed in compliance with the unbundled parking provisions in Section 9.28.110.
2. Attendant Requirement. Valet or attendant service is required at all times unless
it is determined that the parking may be operated self -sufficiently by users, and
queuing space is adequate for self-operation. Exceptions to the attendant
requirement are stated below.
13. Residential Parking. For projects with 50 units or more, all residential parking in
excess of 0.5 parking spaces for each dwelling unit may be stored and accessed
by mechanical parking systems, valet, or other space-efficient means.
a. Projects with two or fewer dwelling units are exempt from the Parking and
Loading Operations Plan and attendant requirements.
b. An attendant is not required when tandem parking spaces are assigned to
the same unit as the parking stall blocking access. Mechanical stackers
require an attendant unless it can be demonstrated that the system can
be operated by users without an attendant and the Parking and Loading
Operations Plan includes a nonoperation plan.
c. An attendant is not required when an automated parking system is
determined to be independentl y accessible, it can be demonstrated that
the system can be operated by users without an attendant, and the
Parking and Loading Operations Plan includes a nonoperation plan.
24. CommercialNon-Residential and Mixed-Use Parking. Mechanical systems and
valet parking may be used to satisfy the off -street parking requirements when the
parking lot is staffed by an attendant at all times who is authorized and able to
move the vehicle obstructing access.
a. The maximum number of non-residential tandem parking spaces may not
exceed 25% of the total number of provided parking spaces when no
attendant is available. Mechanical stackers require an attendant unless it
can be demonstrated that the system can be operated by users without an
attendant and the Parking and Loading Operations Plan includes a
nonoperation plan.
b. Automated parking systems shall not result in queuing into any public
right-of-way. The applicant shall prepare a technical study comparing
expected traffic-intensity with parking system capacity to determine the
11
amount of short-term parking needed, if any, to mitigate potential impacts
from users seeking short-term parking. At minimum, the study shall
address peak parking demand, the number of vehicles entering and exiting
the facility, the cycle time of the automated parking system, how the
system is accessed, queuing space, the number of attendants available,
and the amount of short-term parking spaces available.
c. An attendant is not required when an automated parking system is
determined to be independently accessible , it can be demonstrated that
the system can be operated by users without an attendant, and the
Parking and Loading Operations Plan includes a nonoperation plan.
35. Screening. Except for required ingress and egress, all mechanical parking shall
be fully enclosed.
6. Signage. Parking spaces shall have signage clarifying operations of the spaces to
users.
7. Space-Efficient Parking Spaces. Pursuant to Section 9.28.120(C), exceptions to
dimensional requirements may be granted for space-efficient spaces.
D. Tandem Parking.
1. Tandem Parking for Non-Residential Uses: Tandem parking may be permitted
to satisfy the off-street parking requirement for commercial uses in accordance
with the following:
a. No more than 1 car is required to move to access the desired parking
space.
b. Tandem parking may be used when:
i. The parking lot is staffed by an attendant at all times who is
authorized and able to move the vehicle obstructing access. ADA
parking spaces may be provided with this operation.; or
ii. The maximum number of tandem parking spaces does not exceed
25% of the total number of spaces. ADA compliant spaces may
not be provided in this configuration.
2. Residential Uses. Tandem parking shall only be permitted for single unit
dwellings.
3. Signage. Spaces shall have signage clarifying operations of the space to
encourage the use of both spaces.
D. Queuing Spaces.
1. Quantity Required. Off-street Queuing space at the vehicular entrance shall be
provided at a minimum rate of 5 percent of the total space -efficient parking
provided or 2 Queuing spaces, whichever is greater. For the purpose of
determining required Queuing spaces, fractions equal to or greater than one-half
resulting from the calculations in this Section shall be considered to be one
Queuing space.
2. Dimensions. In no event shall the dimensions of any Queuing space be less than
18 feet long and 8 feet, 6 inches wide.
3. Deviation from Requirement. Off-street Queuing space at the vehicle entrance
shall be provided at the rate set forth in subsection (D)(1) of this Section. The
number of Queuing spaces required pursuant to this Section may be reduced when
a technical study can demonstrate that the operational characteristics of the
parking facility and expected traffic intensity warrant such a reduction.
4. Parking Facility Entry. For off-street parking facilities where entering vehicles are
required to stop before a mechanically operated barrier before entering the parking
facility, such barrier shall be placed a minimum of 18 feet from the parcel line where
the entrance is accessed.
E. Operations.
1. Covenant for Operation. A “Covenant and Agreement Regarding Maintenance
of Mechanical Parking System” shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County
Recorder’s Office to ensure vehicle parking system are maintained in operable
condition at all times.
12
2. Generator. Automated parking structures shall be equipped with an on-site
generator with sufficient capacity to store and retrieve cars if or when the electrical
power is down.
3. Manual Override. Mechanical stacker lifts shall provide manual override capability
to access or remove cars from the parking lift in the event of a power outage.
4. Covenant for Attendant. A “Covenant and Agreement to Provide Parking
Attendant” shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office when
a parking attendant is required.
Add the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.030 (p. 3.66):
E. Parking and Loading Operations Plan. Projects that result in greater than 40 provided
parking spaces, new Private Parking surface lots or structures, or projects that provide
space-efficient parking shall submit a Parking and Loading Operations Plan to the Director
for review and approval before issuance of any building permits.
Add the following language in SMMC Section 9.52.020 (p. 5.40):
9.52.020.1745 Automated Parking System. Off-street parking facility where vehicular storage
and retrieval within such facility is accomplished entirely through a mechanical
conveyance system. A parking facility with parking lift systems that require an
attendant to maneuver a vehicle that is to be parked shall not be considered an
automated parking facility.
1
ATTACHMENT B
(Policy Redline Explanations)
POLICY DISCUSSION ITEMS
#16
SMMC Section 9.11.030 (p. 2.53)
Policy Topic: Revisit appropriateness of minimum 15-foot first-story street wall height
for new projects.
Purpose of the Standard
o The purpose of this standard is to provide pedestrian-oriented ground floor
design, allow for variety of commercial uses on ground floor, and provide
consistent design pattern along commercial streets.
How the Issue was Identified
o Architects and developers have found the standard to be challenging to meet for
parcels with unique sloping conditions and for prospective smaller buildings with
limited stories.
o The ARB has also commented that the 15-foot minimum is too low for a
pedestrian-scaled ground floor and creates odd proportions compared with a
building’s upper floors
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
o Eliminates first story street wall height requirements and utilize minimum ground
floor floor-to-floor heights instead, similar to standards established in the
Downtown Community Plan.
o Creates a standard defining the maximum allowable separation between the
ground floor level and the adjacent finished grade facing a street with no relation
to technical definition of building stories. This standard varies slightly between flat
ground-floor street frontages along commercial boulevards and sloped ground-
floor street frontages along commercial boulevards in order to provide a little
more flexibility for sloped sites.
o Allows for the ability to apply for a Major Modification from the minimum and
maximum ground floor floor-to-floor heights.
#17
SMMC Section 9.21.060(A) (p. 3.9)
Policy Topic: Reconsider the limit on skylights at a maximum of 12” above the roof.
Purpose of the Standard
o The standard allows for the design and installation of skylight fixtures allowing for
access to natural daylight while minimizing their aesthetic projections above the
roof.
How the Issue was Identified
o Some architects and property owners claim that the maximum 12” projection
above a roof limits the design type and position (slope/tilt) of a skylight. This
limitation can be problematic for common skylight designs, particularly those with
a curb base and domed surface or skylight fixtures that can be propped open for
natural ventilation.
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
2
o Increases the skylight projection limit from 1’ to 5’ to be consistent with other
energy-efficient projections such as windscoops (currently 5’ projection above the
height limit is allowed) and limits such skylight projections to a maximum of 30%
roof area while not allowing them within 5’ of any roof edge.
#28
SMMC Section 9.31.300 (p. 3.156)
Policy Topic: Revisit the existing maximum allowable size for an Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU)
Purpose of the Standard
o The purpose of the ADU maximum size standard is to limit the size of ADUs and
ensure they are accessory to the primary residences, and to protect the
character of single-unit residential districts.
o Recent changes in State ADU law are intended to address barriers, streamline
approvals, and expand potential capacity for ADUs.
How the Issue was Identified
o Through the course of updating the Zoning Ordinance ADU standards to make
them consistent with recent changes to State law, the Commission expressed
interest in revisiting the maximum size standard.
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
o Increases the maximum allowable size of ADUs to 1,200 SF to be consistent with
State law as long as the ADUs remain clearly subordinate to the main dwelling
unit on the parcel in terms of size, location, and appearance.
o Create an independent set of ADU standards separate from the accessory
building standards to avoid any confusion and/or conflicts between the
standards.
o Clarifies that certain existing accessory buildings can be converted to ADUs
consistent with State law.
o Allows for larger second stories for ADUs.
#30
SMMC Section 9.48.010(A) (p. 4.50)
Policy Topic: Add the word “allow” to Section 9.48.010(A).
Purpose of the Standard
o The purpose of the standard is to identify the various actions related to the
Zoning Ordinance that are subject to enforcement procedures.
How the Issue was Identified
o The issue was identified during a previous code compliance case where a
property owner attempted to deflect responsibility of a tenant’s violation and fail
to compel the tenant to comply by arguing their lack of knowledge of a particular
regulation.
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
o Seeks to prevent continual violations of regulations by tenants and hold property
owners responsible for violations committed by tenants.
o Provides a broad ability to enforce safety and nuisance violations such as
electrical hazards and noise issues.
3
#35
SMMC Section 9.31.040(D)(2) (p. 3.117)
Policy Topic: For Alcohol Exemption determinations for restaurants over 50 seats,
simplify the public notification required to be sent to property owners and tenants within
750 feet.
Purpose of the Standard
o The standard requires all property owners and residential and commercial
tenants within a radius of 750 feet from a restaurant over 50 seats where a
determination for an Alcohol Exemption has been issued to be sent the
Statement of Official Action. This allows neighbors to be informed of the
administrative Alcohol Exemption determination and gives them an opportunity to
appeal the decision.
How the Issue was Identified
o Two recent Alcohol Exemptions resulted in the need to mail over 1,500 and 900
copies respectively of 5-6 page determinations. These mailings required
extensive staff resources and time to copy, fold, and stuff the determinations into
envelopes as well as the monetary expenses to copy and mail the
determinations.
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
o Simplifies the public notification by sending notice of determination cards, similar
to mailed public hearing notices, with information summarizing the determination
and including a web link to the determination online, instead of the full multi-page
determination.
o Continues to provide the determination to the adjacent neighbors but in a more
efficient manner.
#36
SMMC Section 9.37.070(D)(1) (p. 4.9)
Policy Topic: Require all Zoning Administrator determinations to be mailed to persons
who submitted request to speak forms at the hearing or sent in written comments.
Purpose of the Standard
o With respect to Director decisions, the Zoning Ordinance requires statements of
official action to be transmitted to applicants, all individuals who testify at the
public hearing, and to other individuals who provide written notice that they
wished to receive the statement of official action for the item. This is intended to
keep relevant parties updated on Zoning Administrator cases and allow them
opportunities to appeal decisions.
How the Issue was Identified
o Occasionally for applications reviewed by the Zoning Administrator, members of
the public have submitted written comments but have not specifically requested
copies of the statement of official action. In these cases, the statements of official
action have not been sent to these commenters.
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
o Requires statements of official action to be sent to members of the public who
have submitted written comments regardless of whether they have requested a
statement of official action or not and regardless of whether they were in
attendance at the hearing or not.
4
#37
SMMC Section 9.43.030(C) (p. 4.29)
Policy Topic: Clarify that all City-Designated Historic Resources include landmark
structures and trees.
Purpose of the Standard
o This standard allows applicants for a Major Modification involving a project that
includes the retention and preservation of a structure that is a City-Designated
Historic Structure to seek more than two modifications. This allows for design
flexibility and encourages the retention of historic resources.
How the Issue was Identified
o A recent case involving a landmarked tree highlighted the potential confusion as
to whether designated trees and other designated resources that may not be
considered “structures” could be considered when utilizing this standard for Major
Modifications.
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
o Clarify this section of the Zoning Ordinance to include designated trees and other
resources by including the word “improvement”.
o This makes the section consistent with the Landmarks Ordinance, which
authorizes designation of improvements defined as any building, structure, place,
site, work of art, landscape feature, plantlife, life-form, scenic condition or other
object constituting a physical betterment of real property, or any part of such
betterment.
#38
SMMC Section 9.08.030(A)(1)(f) (p. 2.23)
Policy Topic: Correct the beach rear yard setback requirement for R2 parcels located
north of the Pier and west of Ocean Avenue.
Purpose of the Standard
o This standard provides the minimum beach rear yard setback required for R2
parcels located north of the Pier and west of Ocean Avenue as measured from
the centerline of Ocean Front Walk.
How the Issue was Identified
o Under the prior Zoning Ordinance, the parcels in this area were designated R2B,
and the required beach rear yard setback was 15 feet for parcels 100 feet or less
in depth and 55 feet for parcels over 100 feet in depth.
o With the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance update in 2015, the beach rear yard
setback was changed to 25 feet for all parcels in this area.
o It is unclear why this beach rear yard setback requirement was changed. The
existing pattern of development in this area of the R2 district, particularly along
Ocean Front Walk, exhibits rear setbacks of approximately 15 feet while the
parcels further north that are over 100 feet in depth exhibit deeper rear setbacks.
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
o Changes the beach rear yard setback requirement in the R2 district north of the
Pier and west of Ocean Avenue back to the same standard as in the previous
Zoning Ordinance for the R2B district. This ensures that new development is in
line with the existing setback line of existing homes.
5
#39
SMMC Section 9.08.030(A)(1) (p. 2.24)
Policy Topic: Clarify the limits for allowable projections into beach rear yard setbacks
for R2 parcels located north of the Pier and west of Ocean Avenue.
Purpose of the Standard
o SMMC Section 9.21.110 sets forth the requirements for permitted projections into
required setbacks. Balconies, decks, porches, and similar structures that are
open and unenclosed on at least two sides are allowed to project 4 feet into a
rear setback but no closer than 4 feet to any parcel line. The purpose of the
limitation on balcony projection is generally to protect privacy of adjacent
neighbors. The standard was written to address a typical situation where
properties have a shared rear parcel line.
How the Issue was Identified
o A recent code compliance case in the R2 district along Ocean Front Walk north
of the Pier and west of Ocean Avenue involved a residence built with a compliant
rear setback (based on plans that were subject to the previous Zoning
Ordinance) of 15 feet as measured from the centerline of Ocean Front Walk. As
Ocean Front Walk is 20 feet wide, this resulted in a rear setback of 5 feet from
the rear parcel line. Given that projections into the rear yard are not permitted
closer than 4 feet to any parcel line, this only leaves space for a 1-foot balcony
projection into the rear yard. This is not consistent with the pattern of
development along Ocean Front Walk where most rear balconies project closer
to the rear parcel line.
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
o For parcels 100 feet or less in depth, allows balconies, decks, porches, and
similar structures that are open and unenclosed on at least two sides to extend to
the rear property line in the beach rear yard setback but not within the minimum
side yard setbacks consistent with the pattern of development in this area.
#40
SMMC Section 9.28.050 (p. 3.69)
Policy Topic: Update Figure 9.28.050: Parking Overlay Areas to be consistent with the
recent adoption of the Downtown Community Plan.
Purpose of the Standard
o Figure 9.28.050 geographically designates which areas of the city constitute
Parking Overlay Area 1, Parking Overlay Area 2, the Bergamot Area Plan area,
and the Downtown Specific Plan area in order to identify these areas that contain
different off-street parking requirements.
How the Issue was Identified
o The figure currently shows the “Downtown Specific Plan Area – (Parking
Requirements to be Determined)”. Subsequent to the adoption of the Zoning
Ordinance update, the Downtown Community Plan was adopted. Figure 9.28.050
should be updated accordingly to reflect the correct nomenclature, boundaries,
and parking requirements of the Downtown Community Plan.
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
o Updates Figure 9.28.090: Parking Overlay Areas to be consistent with current
information.
6
#41 & #42
SMMC Section 9.28.090 (p. 3.81)
Policy Topics: Clarify/create standards for parking that are considered space-efficient.
Allow mechanical/space-efficient parking in R1 garages and lower the threshold to allow
for mechanical/space-efficient parking in multi-unit residential projects.
Purpose of the Standard
o The standard is intended to ensure that parking is readily available to users while
allowing use of various space efficient parking types including mechanical
stackers, tandem parking, and automated parking systems.
o The standard also limits residential tandem parking to single unit dwellings,
excluding multi-unit dwellings. This prohibits residential parking configurations
that complicate implementation of SMMC Section 9.28.110- Unbundled Parking.
o Ensure projects that incorporate mechanical parking (lifts, elevators, turntables
and automated systems) have sufficient resources to maintain and operate the
systems.
How the Issue was Identified
o “Independently accessible” parking by definition is compliant with the Parking
Design and Development Standards of SMMC Section 9.28.120, and therefore is
permitted to satisfy parking requirements in any circumstance. Some space-
efficient parking does not meet the standard for being “independently accessible”
(e.g. tandem parking) and is only appropriate for certain situations and land uses.
This concept is not clearly reflected in this code section and has resulted in a
misunderstanding of the implications of “independently accessible” parking.
o Applicants have also argued that flexibility is needed to allow some tandem
parking for multi-unit residential projects, which would provide flexibility to
balance both the efficient use of space and ability to unbundle parking.
Unbundled parking is required for multi-unit residential projects of 4 units or
more.
o Single unit dwelling property owners have sought the use of mechanical parking
systems for design efficiency or due to physical constraints related to their
parcels.
o An applicant proposed mechanical parking for a 23-unit residential project which
City staff was required to reject. The applicant argued that 23 units is sufficiently
sized to require an on-site manager who could resolve issues with the system.
Mechanical parking products have become more reliable and less expensive
thereby expanding their use to smaller developments. Further, the 50-unit
threshold is inconsistent with how the City treats mechanical parking for small
commercial uses which allow mechanical parking for projects of any size.
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
o Amends this section of the Zoning Ordinance to specifically state that space
efficient parking may be used to provide parking.
o Requires a Parking and Loading Operations Plan for projects that result in
greater than 40 provided parking spaces, new Private Parking surface lots or
structures, or projects that provide space-efficient parking to ensure safe and
efficient use of parking resources.
o Requires queuing spaces to ensure that staging space is provided for vehicles to
wait on private property prior to parking entry.
o Removes the reference to independently accessible parking spaces in Section
9.28.090 and restructures the code to focus on automated parking systems,
tandem parking, mechanical tandem, and other space-efficient means.
7
o Allows a percentage of total non-residential parking to be in tandem configuration
without an attendant with the approval of a Parking and Loading Operations Plan.
o Allows tandem for residential projects.
o Allows mechanical systems such as stackers and automobile turntables for
single unit dwellings.
o Removes the 50-unit threshold and allows mechanical parking for residential
projects of any size.
o Clarifies when parking attendants are required.
o Provides enhanced flexibility for the use of space-efficient parking in all project
types.
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Friday, May 18, 2018 1:34 PM
To:Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin McKeown
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Zoning Ordinance Revsions
From: Hank Koning [mailto:hkoning@kearch.com]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 9:17 AM
To: Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@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>;
Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Revsions
May 9, 2018
Santa Monica City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street,
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Zoning Ordinance Policy Issues, May 22nd, Agenda Item TBD
Dear Mayor Winterer and Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of the Planning Commission and Staff’s recommended revisions to the Zoning Ordinance.
Particular items that I feel are most beneficial to housing production and good design include:
1.Replacing the Zoning Ordinance’s Minimum and Maximum First-Story Street Wall Height standard with two
new standards regulating ground floor height and sidewalk adjacency.
These revisions are important to provide effective and reliable standards for housing projects, which are projects
the City generally wishes to encourage. And these revisions align with the City’s approach in the recently-
adopted Downtown Community Plan with respect to pedestrian-oriented ground floor deign.
The Planning Commission has been aware of the problem with the First-Story Street Wall Height standard for
some time and has approved several housing projects with modifications to the standard. For example, our office
designed the 100% Affordable Housing Project at 1626 Lincoln that required such a modification. As a policy
matter, it makes no sense to have a standard that routinely triggers the need for a Code deviation, especially for
housing projects that are trying their best to comply in good faith with the Code as written. Variances and
modifications should be reserved for unique situations, not common circumstances.
While we support the new standards and urge the City Council to adopt them, the new ground-floor height and
sidewalk-adjacency standards will not work for every site because there are always going to be a few sites with
unique topography in the City. Thus, the modification and waiver procedures remain important and still needed.
2.The revision to the allowed projection of skylights above the height limit. This will allow more flexibility in
including various skylight designs that can contribute to more sustainably designed buildings.
3.The various revisions proposed to the parking standards, allowing tandem parking and mechanical systems
to be used in residential projects of all sizes.
I urge the City Council to adopt the modifications to the Zoning Ordinance recommended by City Staff and the Planning
Commission related the items above. These modifications are important to better providing clear and predictable
Item 7-C
05/22/18
1 of 11 Item 7-C
05/22/18
2
standards for housing projects and to ensure that the design of housing projects does not suffer by applicants choosing to
comply with the current standard rather than pursuing modifications that might enhance building design
Thank you for your consideration of these items.
Sincerely,
Hendrik Koning, FAIA, FRAIA, LEED AP,
Principal
Koning Eizenberg Architecture, Inc.
--
Hank Koning FAIA FRAIA LEED A.P. Founding Principal
KoningEizenberg | 1454 25th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90404
310 828 6131 x111 www.kearch.com
Item 7-C
05/22/18
2 of 11 Item 7-C
05/22/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:danilobach <danilobach@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 9:55 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Clerk Mailbox
Subject:Item 7-C: 5/22/18 City Council meeting
Dear Mayor Winterer and Council Members,
I'm writing because I am out of town and don't know if I'll be be back in time to speak on Item 7-C at Tuesday night's
meeting As a resident involved with the IZO and the effort to moderate the scale and lot coverage of out-sized new
construction in our R-1 neighborhoods, I encourage you to observe the intent of the IZO when it comes to the size of
ADU's and allow only ADU's of 650 sq, ft. or less not to count in calculation of lot coverage. Correspondingly, anything
over 650 sq, ft. would count towards lot coverage. I note that this, or something close to it, is a stipulation that's been
adopted by other cities in the state similarly concerned with excessive lot coverage and oversized construction in R-1
neighborhoods and would certainly be consistent with the aim of our IZO.
Respectfully,
Danilo Bach
Item 7-C
05/22/18
3 of 11 Item 7-C
05/22/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Clerk Mailbox
Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 10:20 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: City Council Meeting 5/22/2018, Agenda Item 7.C
From: Katharine Dreyfuss [mailto:kitdreyfuss@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 9:07 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: City Council Meeting 5/22/2018, Agenda Item 7.C
Dear Mayor Winterer and Council members:
I have read your staff report recommending that the maximum size of ADUs be increased to 1200 square feet,
the maximum size allowed by State law. Lot sizes vary in our city, and such a large ADU would inordinately
increase parcel coverage in many areas. In a local survey done earlier this year, 25.52% of 550 respondents
advocated retaining the currently allowed 650 square feet as the upper limit for an ADU to be exempt from lot
coverage.
Unless you decide to establish a percentage of lot size as the standard for ADU square footage, a city-wide
ADU standard of 650 square feet seems appropriate.
Thank you for considering my opinion.
Sincerely,
Katharine Dreyfuss
Item 7-C
05/22/18
4 of 11 Item 7-C
05/22/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Brad Pollack <skyfilmskyfilm@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 12:23 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:item 7-C on Tuesday, May 22nd,2017 meeting agenda re: Accessory Dwelling Units
To Council:
As a long-time resident, I am appreciative of and want to thank the Council for it's work on so many complex
issues. Unfortunately, I'm unable to attend tomorrow's council meeting to provide public comment on agenda
item 7-C: potential ADU zoning ordinance changes. Below is a copy of the recent letter that I emailed to all
city council members and the city manager regarding the modifications for size and other parameters of
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) that will be considered by council.
For all the reasons explained in my letter and several more included in this email, I am opposed to the Planning
Commission recommendation that the allowable ADU size in Santa Monica be enlarged to the new state
maximum of 1200 sq. ft. As shown clearly in the new law, a locality is not required to allow the maximum.
Several more reasons that have come to mind why increased ADU size in R-1 residential zones is a bad idea
are:
1. Density in Santa Monica has already increased considerably in recent years. Allowance of larger ADU's will
increase density in R-1 zones and other residential zones,
2. downsizing of the primary home structure and increasing the ADU size is incongruous,
3. canopy, green space, and green sustainability will be reduced which negatively impacts air quality. More car
trips will increase congestion and increase car generated air pollution also lessening air quality,
4. more garbage will be generated in the residential neighborhoods, and
5. homeowners' will expect market rental rates for their ADU's so enlarging ADU size does not address local
affordability concerns.
In addition, the new ordinance should not:
1. Allow ministerial processing of ADU applications. or
2. Compromise the environmental qualities and quality of life that Santa Monica residents expect and so
vigorously embrace and support.
2. At a minimum, before Council makes any decisions regarding new ADU rules, a survey of the relevant
target group of residents who will be most impacted, single-family R-1 zone homeowners, should be done. The
city has done many resident surveys about various issues and many are currently active. Therefore, a survey to
get input and assess sentiment about an issue as important as ADU zoning ordinance changes is appropriate.
RECENT LETTER:
To All City Council Members and the City Manager:
I am writing to you about the Planning Commission suggestion recently delivered to the Council that the maximum ADU
size in Santa Monica be increased to the state maximum that was expanded to 1200 sq. ft. last year. As a long-time homeowner living
in a single unit family R1 residential neighborhood, I’m strongly opposed to Council allowing the 1200 sq. ft. state maximum and urge
the Council to keep the Santa Monica ADU maximum at its current 650 sq. ft. size which is large enough (I don’t personally know any
homeowner who is in favor of increasing the ADU size). The quality of life in our neighborhood is excellent and the neighborhood is
a reasonably quiet, uncongested one and I want to keep it that way.
If Council approves the state maximum, ADU size will almost double the current 650’ size limit and have a considerable
negative impact on all of our R-1 residential neighborhoods. I’m surprised that the Planning Commission settled on the state
maximum since that conclusion is inconsistent with its own mission statement which, in part, directs the Commission to prevent undue
concentrations of population and lessen congestion on streets (in Santa Monica neighborhoods). Last year, as reported in an article in
the S.M Daily Press, in referring to the new state ADU guidelines, current Planning Commission Chair Nina Fresco reportedly said:
“We have to remember: yes, we are getting opportunity for more housing but we are doing it in our existing neighborhoods that have a
particular neighborhood character … and we have to make sure that we retain that character.” A 1200 sq. ft., potentially 3br, 2bath
house, in the backyard does not retain that existing R1 neighborhood character.
Item 7-C
05/22/18
5 of 11 Item 7-C
05/22/18
2
In addition, placing a large 1200’ structure in the backyard of an R1 single-family house undermines the current, ongoing
citywide efforts to reduce mass and square footage in residential neighborhoods. The interim ordinance that is currently in place in
Sunset Park further reduces allowable size and mass. In fact, allowing the state ADU maximum contradicts the very goal that the
Planning Commission, Council, and homeowners have sought to achieve. As an example, a house up the street from me is about
1,040’. If Council approves 1200’, that would allow a house 15% larger then the existing house to be placed in the backyard and, in
this example, the ADU would not be subordinate in size to the primary house since it would be a bigger house. I believe that it would
be possible to have a larger 2-story ADU house behind the existing 1-story structure which doesn’t make any sense.
Most people in California are aware that the state is facing an affordable housing shortage and shortage of housing for our
homeless residents and want government to address this critical problem, as I do. But, turning a single family neighborhood into a
more densely populated one is not an effective, practical, realistic, or logical way to address or help solve the problem of affordable
housing or homelessness in Santa Monica. 1200 sq. ft. ADU’s in Santa Monica residents’ backyards are not going to be affordable to
the person or family needing affordable housing. At the same time, de facto conversion of R1 residential neighborhoods thru out the
city into more densely populated neighborhoods will have substantial negative impact on existing residents without equal offsetting
benefit to their respective neighborhoods. Several likely consequences that immediately come to mind are:
1. potential safety issues: more unknown people coming and going in a neighborhood
2. more traffic and congestion as well as parking on the streets
3. higher density and change of character of neighborhood
State legislators were hoping that increasing the allowable ADU size would be part of a quick fix solution to the affordable
housing shortage by allowing a structure the size of a 2nd single family house in an R1 residential homeowner’s backyard. And, an
unsubstantiated rationale was kicked around that there were going to be tons of empty nest homes in the future so that departing
children could be replaced in the backyard with new renters and there would be no net increase in any street or neighborhood’s
resident population. No study that I’m aware of was done to support this assumption, and it is very unlikely that this assumption will
be statistically validated by the facts. The large ADU house that Sacramento envisioned in a backyard could have more than 5 people
residing in it, much greater than the number of children who may be leaving, if any, and having more occupants then the number
living in the primary main structure. This unfounded theory also doesn’t take into consideration boomerang children or family
members returning to the family home which is not uncommon today.
Fortunately, state legislators were wise enough to understand that each municipality has its own unique housing circumstances,
needs, and neighborhood character and one size doesn’t fit all. That is why each local government, including Santa Monica, has the
legal right to determine how large an ADU to permit. A larger ADU is not going to solve the affordability and homelessness issue in
Santa Monica. In another municipality with lower housing costs, the idea might have some viability. If the Planning Commission
intent was just to open the door to more housing, not just affordable housing, local housing conditions (Santa Monica included) do not
indicate a lack of non-affordable housing.
As most residents and Council know, there is an enormous amount of multifamily (and new construction larger single-family
homes) both currently being built (and in the pipeline) in Santa Monica and the immediately adjacent areas of Los Angeles (e.g.,
Venice, MDR, PDR, Westchester, West LA). Just look around; it’s obvious. Lastly, across 11th Street on the west side from where I
live, the block is zoned R2 residential. The residents in this zone already expect that density, population, and street congestion may be
greater than in other zones. However, this is not true about an R1 residential neighborhood.
I’ve explained my thinking from a resident, voter, and taxpayer perspective. Thank you for taking my comments and
observations into consideration as Council deliberates on this very important matter. I’d appreciate hearing back from each council
member what your position is on the ADU issue. Housing and ADU’s are a complicated issue and require a thoughtful, nuanced
approach so neighborhoods are not disrupted when policy is formed to address both of these issues. I would welcome the opportunity
to have a further conversation with any council member who is interested in having one. I can be reached by phone or email to setup a
meeting time.
Sincerely,
Brad Pollack
Resident of Sunset Park
Member of Friends of Sunset Park neighborhood association
skyfilmskyfilm@gmail.com
Item 7-C
05/22/18
6 of 11 Item 7-C
05/22/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 9:53 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 -- 5/22/18 agenda item 7-C -- ADUs
May 21, 2018
To: City Council
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 5/22/18 agenda item 7-C – Auxiliary Dwelling Units (ADUs)
The FOSP Board urges you to:
1) Maintain the current maximum ADU size of 650 sq ft.
2) With reference to the R1 Interim Zoning Ordinance, include ADU square footage in lot coverage
calculations.
Although staff recommends increasing the maximum size of ADUs to 1,200 sq ft, we feel this would be
inappropriate in the Sunset Park neighborhood due to the lot sizes, which are not uniform and are
generally smaller than in some of the other residential neighborhoods in the city.
In addition, some of the existing homes in our neighborhood are as small as 900 sq ft, so to allow an ADU that
is larger than the existing home seems to make no sense.
Item 7-C
05/22/18
7 of 11 Item 7-C
05/22/18
2
The Staff Report acknowledges that other cities limit maximum size to between 500 and 800 sq ft.
For example, Culver City seems to have a maximum ADU size of 600 sq ft.
Glendale -- 600 sq ft
Thousand Oaks -- 600 sq ft
Oxnard -- 640 sq ft
Huntington Beach -- 650 sq ft
Thank you for taking our two requests into consideration.
Item 7-C
05/22/18
8 of 11 Item 7-C
05/22/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Judy Abdo <JAbdo@msn.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 10:31 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 7C on the May 22 City Council agenda
Dear Mayor Winterer and Councilmembers:
Santa Monica Forward supports the Planning Commission’s proposed Zoning Ordinance revisions related to
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) and requests that you adopt staff’s recommendation to approve these
revisions. Encouraging the development of ADU’s is important as a means of meeting the city’s housing needs
and complying with State Law.
The recommended maximum ADU square footage is 1,200 square feet. However, in its action, the Planning
Commission recognized that ADU’s must be clearly subordinate to the primary residence in terms of size,
location, and appearance in order to protect neighborhood character. In fact, State Law stipulates that ADU’s
cannot be larger than 50% of the square footage of the primary residence. It is also important to keep in mind
that any ADU new construction must comply with ZO setback requirements and step backs in the case of a
second story.
We also acknowledge that future deliberations of the City Council and the Planning Commission are likely to
address potential conflicts between the proposed increased ADU square footage and the community’s
expressed wishes to reduce the allowable square footage of replacement homes in our R1 neighborhoods. This
conflict arises from the provision in the R1 Interim Zoning Ordinance that exempts ADU square footage from lot
coverage calculation. We therefore recommend that this exemptio n o f 1 0 0 % o f A D U s q ua r e f o o t a g e b e
addressed when the permanent Zoning Ordinance revisions governing R1 Development Standards are
developed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Juan Matute, Co‐Chair
Judy Abdo, Co‐Chair
Santa Monica Forward Steering Committee
Item 7-C
05/22/18
9 of 11 Item 7-C
05/22/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 10:59 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: City Council Meeting 5/22/2018, Agenda Item 7.C
Council‐
Please see the below email regarding the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: Katharine Dreyfuss [mailto:kitdreyfuss@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 9:07 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: City Council Meeting 5/22/2018, Agenda Item 7.C
Dear Mayor Winterer and Council members:
I have read your staff report recommending that the maximum size of ADUs be increased to 1200 square feet,
the maximum size allowed by State law. Lot sizes vary in our city, and such a large ADU would inordinately
increase parcel coverage in many areas. In a local survey done earlier this year, 25.52% of 550 respondents
advocated retaining the currently allowed 650 square feet as the upper limit for an ADU to be exempt from lot
coverage.
Unless you decide to establish a percentage of lot size as the standard for ADU square footage, a city-wide
ADU standard of 650 square feet seems appropriate.
Thank you for considering my opinion.
Sincerely,
Katharine Dreyfuss
Item 7-C
05/22/18
10 of 11 Item 7-C
05/22/18
RE: May 22, 2018 Item # 7C
Zoning Ordinance Revisions
Dear City Council,
Please, delete the addition of SMMC 9.31.30.F.3.d from the proposed restrictions on a
2-story Accessory Dwelling Unit (part of #28 on page 7 of Attachment A) since it
unnecessarily eliminates the potential for a balcony on a 2-story ADU converted from an
existing garage
The ability to convert an existing garage to an ADU is an important sustainable aspect of
the existing ADU ordinance which allows the owner to repurpose the space on a
residential lot from automobile use to residential use and open space.
However, the new Exterior Features section which has been added is not appropriate
or necessary, especially regarding conversion of existing garages. Much of California’s
residential architecture is characterized by features that provide for indoor/outdoor living
spaces including patios and balconies. As currently written the Exterior Features
section places restrictions on roof decks, landings, upper level walkways and balconies
that make it impossible to build a second story over an existing garage which is on the
property line. Note most garages are only 18-20’ wide so the “25’ setback from side
property” restricts the entire structure from having any of these features at the second
floor. As written this requirement will encourage garage conversions to be only on the
ground floor. This will take up additional lot area using up potential open space and
making it more difficult to design for on-site rainwater percolation. There should be no
restriction on occupied roof decks, landings, upper level walkways, and balconies which
are not in the existing setbacks.
Having a second floor makes better use of the land area and allows for exterior stairs,
balconies and occupied roof decks that face the interior of the lot providing for an indoor-
outdoor flow of space which is typical of good California residential design. Additionally, I
believe the limitation to 35 square feet is too small since it is not large enough to provide
useable and enjoyable space for a tenant/resident. (Should be at least big enough for 2
chairs and a small side table and room to get out the door.)
I was advised to rush to get my ADU plans submitted for Plan Check prior to your action
to get in under the old rules; however, I needed to address other details in the plans and
was not able to do so. Now I feel desperate that this seemingly minor detail – not even
addressed in your Staff Report (pages 5-6) or in the Proposed Redline Explanations
regarding ADU revisions (#28, page 2 of Attachment B) – will significantly reduce the
livability of our proposed unit. Please, eliminate these restrictions.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel S. Wilson, AIA AICP
NSW Consulting, Inc. Architecture & Planning
2907 Virginia Avenue,
Santa Monica, CA 9040
Item 7-C
05/22/18
11 of 11 Item 7-C
05/22/18
Item 7 C Zoning Updates: Accessory Dwelling Units
NOMA is writing to the you for your consideration regarding the staff's recommendation
on the size of Accessory Dwelling Units as part of the R-1 Interim Zoning Ordinance. As
you are aware, their recommendation is to raise the maximum size from the current 650
SF to the state mandated maximum of 1200 SF. However, they also state in their report
that this maximum must acknowledge and is subject to other areas of the law that allow
local control of height, setbacks, second story size and parcel coverage.
The R 1 Survey conducted throughout the R 1 neighborhoods late in 2017 had a question
about the desired size of ADU’s. The question: “I think ADUs in R 1 should be larger
than the 650 SF max that our current law allows” had responses of only 25.75%.
Residents do not want larger Ado’s.
NOMA is requesting that you consider having the current 650 SF ADU or less continue
to be exempt from lot coverage for this size. There should also be some consideration as
to the proportion of size of the main house to the ADU. Any increase in size up to the
maximum of 1200 SF must be counted in the lot coverage in order to preserve the intent
of the IZO for R I neighborhoods adopted earlier this year by the Council.
This is in keeping with what many cities in California and elsewhere has done. A useful
site for this information can be found at:https://accessorydwellings.org/adu-regulations-
by-city/. For example, Culver City has a maximum ADU size of 600 SF; Thousand Oaks,
600 SF; Glendale, 600 SF; Oxnard, 640 SF; Huntington Beach, 650 SF; Orange, 640 SF.
In its report, the staff acknowledges the fact that cities limit maximum size to between
500-800 SF.
Santa Barbara, as recently as last week, adopted an ADU ordinance based on lot size.
Lots of less than 5000 SF are limited to a 600 SF; a lot size of 5000 – 9999 SF are limited
to 800 SF; lots between 10,000 and 14,999 SF to ADUs of 1000 SF; and those with larger
lots to 1200 SF. In any case no ADU be allowed to exceed 50% of the main dwelling
unit or 1200 SF whichever is smaller.
Interestingly, the average of these two extremes is exactly 650 SF, what you have already
determined to be appropriate. This can be interpreted as either a coincidence or a
subliminal message to the Council.
The R-1 ordinance is city-wide. However, there is an appreciable difference in lot sizes
for different neighborhoods. (North of Montana and Sunset Park, for example.) Since the
primary structure is measured as a percentage of total lot size, the ADU should be as
well. If not, then the impact would be unfairly greater on a smaller lot than on one of the
lots found in Gillette Regent area. Taking a 9000 SF lot as is found in the Gillette Regent
area, a 650 SF ADU would cover 7.2% of the lot and would be 14% of the primary
structure. On a 6000 square foot lot as is found in Sunset Park a 650 SF ADU would be
10.8% of the lot and 21% of the primary structure. Many cities have, in their ordinances,
both a maximum size and a percentage of either lot size, or the primary structure,
whichever is less. This would keep the ADU in scale with both the lot and primary
structure. A provision to consider ADU size relative to lot size throughout the City would
address this problem.
While the primary argument in favor of increasing the size of ADUs is to increase
housing, there is no requirement that the ADU be used for additional housing. Companies
are already marketing ADUs as a way to enlarge houses. It is a significant end-run around
city planning efforts to control lot coverage and mansionization.
Thank you for your consideration of this important issue.
The NOMA Board
Nancy Coleman, Chair
Danilo Bach, Vice Chair
Victor Fresco, Treasurer
Caryn Marshall, Membership
Jeff Brecht, Secretary
Phillis Dudick
Jeff Gordon
Todd James
Jane Koehler
Evelyn Lauchenenauer
Steven Lissik
Sonya Sultan
Jim Williams