Loading...
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