SR 09-24-2019 7E
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 24, 2019
Agenda Item: 7.E
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, City Planning
Subject: Introduction for First Reading of an Interim Zoning Ordinance Extending
Interim Zoning Ordinances 2569 (CCS) and 2572 (CCS) for Interim Changes
to Development Standards in the R1 Single-Unit Zoning District Pending
Adoption of Permanent Revisions to the R1 Development Standards
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an Interim Zoning
Ordinance extending Interim Zoning Ordinances 2569 (CCS) and 2572 (CCS) for
interim development standards in the R1 Single-Unit zoning district pending adoption of
permanent revision to the R1 development standards .
Executive Summary
On February 13, 2018, Council adopted Interim Zoning Ordinance 2569 (CCS) to
temporarily reduce the scale of new construction in R1 zoning districts. The interim
ordinance was adopted in response to community concerns regarding the size of new
home construction and the number of pending applications for demolitions and n ew
home construction in the R1 district.
On April 10, 2018, Council adopted Interim Zoning Ordinance 2572 (CCS) extending
Interim Zoning Ordinance 2569 until November 15, 2019 to provide an opportunity to
conduct a comprehensive revision of the R1 standards, including exploring potential
solutions to address the problem and a public engagement process.
The R1 development standards review process has included significant public
engagement over the past year including technical working group sessions, comm unity
open house events, and Planning Commission meetings. The City Council will review
potential modifications to the R1 development standards, including potential
implementation timing, after staff assesses the impact of potential state legislation
2 of 4
pending action by the Governor that would mandate new requirements for development
standards for accessory dwelling units in residential districts.
The Interim Zoning Ordinance 2572 will expire on November 15, 2019 unless extended
by the City Council in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section
9.46.090(C). The proposed Interim Zoning Ordinance extension would extend the
interim development standards established by Interim Zoning Ordinances 2569 and
2572 until December 31, 2019 to allow the updated R1 development standards to
become effective beginning on January 1, 2020, and allow adequate time for public
notification of the updated development standards.
Background
On October 5, 2016, in response to public correspondence and testimony, the Planning
Commission held a discussion about the rapid change occurring in the R1 zoning
district citywide. A comprehensive review of R1 development standards has not
occurred since selected amendments were made approximately 20 years ago.
On January 9, 2018, in response to significant concerns raised by neighborhood groups
and residents about the size and scale of new single -unit dwelling construction, Council
determined that a revision to the R1 standards was of high importance. In the three
years prior to January 2018, the City had received an average of almost 70 demolition
permit applications for existing single-family homes per year, and at the time of the
January 9, 2018 City Council meeting the City had approximately 42 demolition permit
applications pending, with more applications expected consistent with past years. Due
to the cumulative effect of the demolition of existing residences and replacement with
much larger residences, Council further directed staff to prepare an Interim Zoning
Ordinance that would temporarily reduce the size and scale of new homes pending a
public process to study revisions to the R1 zone development standards.
Consistent with this direction, on February 13, 2018, Council adopted Interim Zoning
Ordinance 2569 which established the following interim changes applicable to new
construction in the R1 district:
3 of 4
• Reduced maximum building height to 28 feet;
• Limited maximum parcel coverage to overall 50% on a sliding scale with a
maximum 20% parcel coverage for the second story;
• Required that upper level stepbacks are measured from the second story;
• Limited aggregate second-story balconies and decks to an aggregate of 400 sf;
and
• Eliminated accessory dwelling units from parcel coverage calculations.
The Council subsequently adopted Interim Zoning Ordinance 2572, extending Interim
Zoning Ordinance 2569 until November 15, 2019 to provide an opportunity to conduct a
comprehensive revision of the R1 standards including exploring potential solutions to
address the problem and a public engagement process.
Since the adoption of Interim Zoning Ordinance 2572, staff has undertaken an extensive
R1 development standards review process with significant public engagement. Input
from technical working group sessions, community open house events, and Planning
Commission meetings have resulted in proposed updated R1 and R1-related
development standards which Council will review at a future meeting.
Discussion
Adoption of the proposed Interim Zoning Ordinance extending the applicability of the
interim development standards for the R1 district would ensure that the opportunity to
protect the City’s unique and diverse neighborhoods is not lost while the comprehensive
review of the R1 standards is completed and prior to updated standards becoming
effective. The interim standards continue to allow for reasonable new construction in the
R1 district more consistent with existing character.
The interim ordinance represents a temporary measure to reduce the maximum
allowable size of new single-unit dwellings in the R1 zoning districts. Staff intends to
propose that, if the Council adopts an ordinance to implement new R1 development
standards at a future meeting, the updated R1 development standards be made
4 of 4
effective on January 1, 2020 to allow adequate time for extensive public notification of
the updated development standards. Extension Interim Zoning Ordinance 2572 until
December 31, 2019, will ensure that until the interim standards will remain in place until
new standards become effective.
Environmental Analysis
The proposed interim ordinance is categorically exempt from the provisions of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 15061(b)(3) of the State Implementation
Guidelines (common sense exemption). Based on the evidence in the record, it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed interim ordinance may
have a significant effect on the environment. The recommended interim ordinance
represents a temporary change to regulatory standards and would not allow more ma ss
or floor area within the Zoning Ordinance than existing regulations. Therefore, no further
environmental review under CEQA is required.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result o f the
recommended action.
Prepared By: Tony Kim, Principal Planner
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. PCD - IZO - R-1 - 09.24.2019
B. Written Comments
C. PowerPoint Presentation
1
City Council Meeting: September 24, 2019 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER _____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA EXTENDING INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NUMBER S
2569 (CCS) AND 2572 (CCS) WHICH AMENDED PORTIONS OF SANTA
MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9.07.030 TO REVISE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS FOR MAXIMUM PARCEL COVERAGE, MAXIMUM BUILDING
HEIGHT, ADDITIONAL MINIMUM STEPBACKS FOR UPPER STOR IES,
LIMITATIONS ON AGGREGATE FLOOR AREA FOR UPPER-STORY DECKS
AND BALCONIES, AND EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNITS FROM PARCEL COVERAGE IN THE R1 SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica has expressly declared that the
purpose of the R1 Single-Unit Residential District (the “R1 District”) is to provide
for single-unit housing on individual parcels at densities of one unit plus one
attached or detached accessory dwelling unit to suit the spectrum of individual
lifestyles and space needs and ensure continued availability of the range of
housing opportunities necessary to meet the needs of all segments of the
community consistent with the General Plan and State law; and
WHEREAS, the City has expressly declared that the further purposes of the
R1 District are to provide adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each
dwelling, and to ensure that the scale and design of new development and
alterations to existing structures are consistent with the scale and mass, and
character of the existing residential neighborhood; and
2
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2018, the City Council, after receiving public
input and in setting priorities for the City’s Planning Department, directed Planning
Staff to make revising development standards in the R1 District the highest of
priority; and
WHEREAS, such revisions were determined necessary after numerous
neighborhood groups and individual residents expressed significant concerns
about the size and scale of recently constructed single family structures within the
City’s R1 Districts; and
WHEREAS, while these new constructions generally compl ied with the
current development standards for the R1 District, they often double d and even
tripled the dwelling’s square footage; and
WHEREAS, the resultant structures were significantly out of character with
the existing built environment, and potentially create s erious light and shadow
impacts on neighboring residences; and
WHEREAS, in the three years prior to January 2018, the City had received
an average of almost 70 demolition permit applications for existing single-family
homes per year; and
WHEREAS, as of January 2018, the City had approximately 42 demolition
permit applications pending, with more applications expected consistent with past
years; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative effect of the demolition of existing residences
and replacement with much larg er residences creates an immediate threat to the
public health, safety, and welfare of the City’s residential neighborhoods; and
3
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2018, the City Council adopted Interim Zoning
Ordinance Number 2569 (CCS) (“Interim Zoning Ordinance 2569”) which
amended portions of Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9.07.030 to revise
development standards for maximum parcel coverage, maximum building height,
additional minimum stepbacks for upper stories, limitations on aggregate floor area
for upper-story decks and balconies, and exclusion of certain accessory dwelling
units from parcel coverage in the R1 Single-Unit Residential District; and
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2018, the City Council Adopted Interim Zoning
Ordinance Number 2572 (CCS), extending Interim Zoning Ordinance 2569 in order
to allow for a more comprehensive review of development standards in the City’s
R1 Districts by City Staff and the Planning Commission (“Interim Zoning Ordinance
2572”); and
WHEREAS, extending interim measures to reduce maximum parcel
coverage and building height in the City’s R1 District allowed the City to fully study
and complete a public outreach process to develop permanent revised standards,
while preserving existing neighborhood scale and character in the meantime; and
WHEREAS, since the adoption of Interim Zoning Ordinance 2572, staff has
engaged in a review process intended to reevaluate development standards in the
R1 District to: address the size of new home construction in relation to the existing
neighborhood context and scale, incentivize the retention of existing homes, and
make development standards in the R1 District more user-friendly; and
WHEREAS, staff also engaged in a public outreach process that included
seeking input from of a technical working group consisting of architects,
4
contractors, community representatives and other design professionals with
knowledge and experience working on single-unit residential projects in the City;
and
WHEREAS, staff further conducted three community open houses on May
18 and 21, 2019 to provide information and education to the public as well as
gather additional public input; and
WHEREAS, on June 19, 2019, the Planning Commission adopted a
Resolution of Intent, Resolution No. 19 -013, declaring its intention to consider
recommending to the City Council that the City Council amend the te xt of the
Zoning Ordinance related to development standards in the R1 District; and
WHEREAS, on June 19, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a
preliminary discussion of the potential amendments to the text of the Zoning
Ordinance related to development standards in the R1 District; and
WHEREAS, on August 7, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing to consider its recommendations to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2019, the California Legislature passed
legislation mandating that local agencies adopt certain development standards for
accessory dwelling units in residential neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, this State legislation may impact development standards for
the R1 District but this legislation has not yet been signed or vetoed by the
Governor; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and declares that there continues to exist
a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and general welfare
5
due to the cumulative effect of the pending demolitions and out-of-scale
development occurring in the City’s R1 Districts that requires the extension of
Interim Zoning Ordinances 2569 and 2572 to December 31, 2019, and approval of
additional permits to allow for the construction of single -family dwelling units under
the current development standards during this interim period would result in a
threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUN CIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Effect on Previously Approved Projects and Projects in
Process. The following projects that would otherwise be affected by the revised
development standards set forth in this Interim Zoning Ordinance shall have a
vested right to proceed without complying with this Interim Zoning Ordinance :
(a) Previously Approved Development. The erection, construction,
enlargement, demolition, moving, conversion of, and excavation and grading for
any building or structure for which a valid planning entitlement, permit or building
permit, including plan check, was issued prior to February 23, 2018 and which
does not subsequently expire. A permit or entitlement that does not contain an
express limit on the time for exercising the permit shall be deemed valid only if a
building permit effectuating the entirety of the permit or entitlement is obtained by
February 23, 2019.
(b) Applications for Projects in Progress. Any application for a
planning entitlement, building permit, including plan check, determined complete
on or before February 23, 2018.
6
SECTION 2. Interim Zoning Regulations. Santa Monica Municipal Code
Section 9.07.030 shall be revised as follows:
(a) Maximum Parcel Coverage. Notwithstanding the development
standards specified in Table 9.07.030 and Section 9.07.030(B), the maximum
parcel coverage shall not exceed 30 percent on the ground floor and 20 percent
on the second floor. For one-story structures not exceeding 18 feet in height, the
maximum parcel coverage shall not exceed 50 percent. The maximum parcel
coverage in specific areas shall be as follows:
(1) North of Montana. For parcels with a ground floor parcel coverage
of no more than 30 percent, the maximum second floor parcel coverage, including
the second floor of all accessory structures, shall not exceed 20 percent of the
parcel area. The ground floor parcel coverage may be increased to a maximum of
50 percent if an equivalent amount is reduced on the second floor. Parcels with
only one-story structures not exceeding eighteen feet in height may have a
maximum parcel coverage of 50 percent. For purposes of this subsection, the area
in any single-story portion of the structure that exceeds the height of the second
floor elevation shall count towards second floor parcel coverage, except where the
roofline of the single-story portion does not exceed eighteen feet in height.
(2) Sunset Park/North of Wilshire. For parcels with a ground floor
parcel coverage of no more than 30 percent, the maximum second floor parcel
coverage, including the second floor of all accessory structures, shall not exceed
20 percent of the parcel area. Ground floor parcel coverage may be increased to
a maximum of 50 percent if an equivalent amount is reduced on the second floor.
7
Parcels with only one-story structures not exceeding eighteen feet in height may
have a maximum parcel coverage of 50 percent. For purposes of this subsection,
the area in any single-story portion of the structure that exceeds the height of the
second floor elevation shall count towards second floor parcel coverage, except
where the roofline of the single -story portion does not exceed eighteen feet in
height.
(3) Expo/Pico. For parcels with a ground floor parcel coverage of no
more than 30 percent, the maximum second floor parcel coverage, including the
second floor of all accessory structures, shall not exceed 20 percent of the parcel
area. Ground floor parcel coverage may be increased to a maximum of 50 percent
if an equivalent amount is reduced on the second floor. Parcels with only one-
story structures not exceeding eighteen feet in height may have a maximum parcel
coverage of 50 percent. For purposes of this subsection, the area in any single -
story portion of the structure that exceeds the height of the second floor elevation
shall count towards second floor parcel coverage, except where the roofline of the
single-story portion does not exceed eighteen feet in height.
(b) Maximum Building Height. Notwithstanding the development
standards specified in Table 9.07.030 and Section 9.07.030(C), the maximum
building height shall be 28 feet.
(c) Additional Minimum Stepbacks for Upper Stories – Second-
Story Portions of Buildings. Notwithstanding the development standards
specified in SMMC Table 9.07.030, the following Additional Minimum Stepback for
Upper Stories—sides shall apply:
8
(1) Front – Second-story portions of buildings exceeding 75% of
maximum buildable front elevations shall be stepped back an average amount
equal to 4% of parcel depth, but no more than 10 feet shall be required. North of
Montana, this average amount shall equal 8% of pa rcel depth, but no more than
12 feet shall be required.
(2) Rear – Second-story portions of buildings exceeding 75% of
maximum buildable rear elevations shall be stepped back an average amount
equal to 4% of parcel depth, but no more than 10 feet shall be required. North of
Montana, 30% of the parcel depth shall be required, but no more than 40 feet shall
be required.
(3) Sides – Second-story portions of buildings exceeding 50% of
maximum buildable side elevations shall be stepped back 1 foot for every 2 fe et 4
inches of height up to 21 feet in height. This stepback shall be measured from
minimum required side setback lines.
(d) Standards for Upper Story Balconies and Roof Decks . The
aggregate square footage of second floor balconies, terraces , or roof decks shall
not exceed 400 square feet.
(e) Accessory Dwelling Units Excluded from Parcel Coverage .
Accessory dwelling units shall not be included in residential parcel coverage
calculations as described in subsection (a) of this Section. To be excluded from
parcel coverage calculations as set forth in this subsection, a ttached accessory
dwelling units shall provide independent exterior access and shall not provide any
interior connections or access to the primary dwelling unit.
9
SECTION 3. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3),
this Interim Zoning Ordinance is exempt from CEQA as it can be seen with
certainty that the proposed ordinance does not have the potential to significantly
impact the environment. The Ordinance represents a temporary change to
regulatory standards and would not allow more mass or floor area within the
Zoning Ordinance than existing regulations. Thus, this Interim Zoning Ordinance
has no potential to cause a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 4. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or any
appendix thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent
of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent
necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of
any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection,
sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutiona l without regard
to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the
passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published
once in the official newspaper with in 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance
shall become effective thirty days after its adoption.
10
SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall be of no further force or effect after
December 31, 2019, unless it is otherwise extended pursuant to Santa Monica
Municipal Code Section 9.46.090.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
LANE DILG
City Attorney
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Eoin Gubbins <egubbins@cgs3.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 22, 2019 9:29 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Agenda Item 7-E (Interim R-1 Standards Ordinance - 9.24.19) - Request for Small Adjustment to
Second Floor Parcel Coverage
Attachments:120 sq. foot bedroom layout.pdf; Ordinance with Eoin Mark-up.pdf; Gubbins Girls first day all at
Grant.JPG
FYI
Eoin H. Gubbins
Crosbie Gliner Schiffman Southard & Swanson LLP
10940 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 2200
Los Angeles, California 90024
424.320.9257
egubbins@cgs3.com
LinkedIn | Twitter | Google+
Visit our website: www.cgs3.com
From: Eoin Gubbins
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2019 9:24 PM
To: council@smgov.net
Cc: clerk@smgov.net; David Martin <David.Martin@SMGOV.NET>; 'Jing Yeo (jing.yeo@smgov.net)'
<jing.yeo@smgov.net>; 'Tony Kim (tony.kim@smgov.net)' <tony.kim@smgov.net>; ross.fehrman@smgov.net
Subject: Agenda Item 7‐E (Interim R‐1 Standards Ordinance ‐ 9.24.19) ‐ Request for Small Adjustment to Second Floor
Parcel Coverage
Dear Councilmembers:
I hope you had a nice weekend. I’m writing with respect to the interim R‐1 ordinance you are scheduled to consider for
adoption on first reading on Tuesday night (a copy of the ordinance is attached.) Please note that I’m writing on behalf
of my family (my wife Sally and three girls) – I’m not representing a client or anyone else with respect to the request
below.
My request: Consider adjusting the 20% parcel coverage limitation on the second floor to 22.5% with no increase in the
overall parcel coverage. This tweak will provide larger families such as ours (we have three girls) with a bit more
flexibility as far as the second floor layout is concerned. (My proposed adjustment is included in the attached.)
My reasons for this request are as follows:
Item 7-E
09/24/19
1 of 11 Item 7-E
09/24/19
2
1. We Have 3 Children & Would Like All of Their Bedrooms to be On the Second Floor. Sally and I are fortunate to
have three girls – Lucy (8), Mary (6) and Margot (3) (photo attached). All three are at Grant School with Margot
(the youngest) starting at the Seaside Preschool this past August. Our current home at 1702 Pine Street
(opposite the back gate of JAMS) has one bathroom and the two older girls share a bedroom. We have been
working on plans for a new home and believe all three girls should have a bedroom each on the second
floor. Not only is it a question of equity (a big issue with three girls!), but also of security and cohesiveness as a
family unit. As they proceed to adolescence, we think having them on the same floor will also help us keep track
of them. In addition, we know that sleep is important at every stage of development and think that having them
upstairs will reduce the noise impacts from the living areas downstairs (including the kitchen).
2. Our Lot is Sub‐Standard & Thus Our Flexibility is Limited. Our lot is 6,998 square feet. Thus it is smaller than the
standard 7,500 square foot lot. The 20% limitation provides that we are limited to 1,399.6 square feet on the
second floor. Based on discussions with a local architect, each of the girls’ bedrooms would be approximately
121 square feet (i.e., 11 feet by 11 feet).
3. We Would Like to Put Desks in Each of The Bedrooms. A bedroom of 121 square feet doesn’t leave much room
for furniture. Attached is a layout I’ve pulled from online. We would like some additional room to put study
desks in each of the girls’ rooms. At 22.5%, we would have some additional square feet in which to
accommodate desks.
4. This Does Not Increase the Overall Parcel Coverage. Please note that we’re not asking for an increase in the
overall parcel coverage limit. I realize that given the interim nature of the ordinance, it may be best to focus on
where flexibility is needed the most (i.e., the second floor for those of us with 3 kids).
Please let me know if you have any questions. I plan to attend your meeting on Tuesday night.
Best regards and thank‐you for considering my request!
Eoin
1702 Pine Street, Santa Monica
Item 7-E
09/24/19
2 of 11 Item 7-E
09/24/19
Item 7-E
09/24/19
3 of 11 Item 7-E
09/24/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jonathan Kaufelt <jonathan@kaufelt.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 8:15 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Jonathan@Kaufelt.com
Subject:R1 Zoning Update (Sept 24, 2019)
To: City Clerk
Re: R1 Update
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Council Members:
I am a homeowner in Santa Monica and want to urge the Council in the strongest
possible terms to maintain the quality of our residential neighborhoods and resist the
drive by developers to build McMansions next door.
In particular, I want to thank the Planning Commission for its careful, appropriate new
guidelines (45% aggregate parcel coverage for 2-story homes), which have been arrived
at after a long deliberative process and should be adopted without modification by the
Council. Likewise the height and setback rules as proposed should be adopted without
change.
It is a difficult balancing act to grow a city, maintain aesthetics, and do our best not to
diminish quality of life. In my neighborhood, for the last year we have lived within 50
yards of three teardown and new home-build projects. There has been no such thing as
“quiet enjoyment.” These projects—all by developers, none by homeowners—have
meant new homes twice the size of the old, and without accomplishing anything like the
increased density that is appropriate to urban development. To the contrary, these
mega-mansions house the same or smaller families in their own internal sprawl. They
cannot be defended as urban development, only blight of a different kind.
Maybe we cannot hold back the ocean in a time of climate change. But we can do our
small part to make Santa Monica, at least, a small part of a more sustainable world.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Kaufelt
351 17th Street
Item 7-E
09/24/19
4 of 11 Item 7-E
09/24/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Thomas Cleys <tcleys@earthlink.net>
Sent:Friday, September 20, 2019 10:03 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fwd: Support for SF Ordinance Changes
>
> I support the City putting further limitations on the size of new SF houses on lots and encouraging people to remodel
existing houses.
>
> I don’t support the scare tactics being used by the opposition of such changes.
> Tom Cleys
> 2244 23rd Street
>Santa Monica
> Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-E
09/24/19
5 of 11 Item 7-E
09/24/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:jane wiedlea <jwjwiedlea@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 20, 2019 12:22 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:September 24/October 22 meetings re: R1 limits on home size
Dear City Council Members:
I am a home owner in Santa Monica. I completely SUPPORT the current revisions to the Santa Monica City Code that will
limit the size of new homes and encourage remodeling existing homes. Please vote in favor of the modified revisions
that will limit the construction size of new homes and encourage the rehabbing of older homes.
I concur with the neighborhood groups and the Planning Commission who support the new regulations.
You, as Council Members, have been instrumental in attempting to create a green Santa Monica. The single family
neighborhoods offer the city additional spots of greenery in a city becoming dominated by taller structures built lot line
to lot line. Larger homes would reduce the shadows and light in areas where solar panels are needed.Smaller homes
save energy. Streets already overcrowded by cars would become more congested if the larger homes are allowed.
Please stay true to your professed values of a green city and support in every aspect possible single family homes built to
enhance conditions that will reduce climate change. Our residential single family homes can be tailored to provide
Santa Monica with the greenery that provide lungs for our city.
Most sincerely,
Jane Wiedlea Koehler
634 21st Street
Santa Monica
Item 7-E
09/24/19
6 of 11 Item 7-E
09/24/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ralph Barton <ralphbarton@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 22, 2019 6:52 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:NO on any changes to R1 1
We are systematically destroying the City of Santa Monica in the name of affordable housing, “livability”, metro access
(Expo), etc. and the result has been great for developers profits, increased crime (the rest of the country is DOWN),
significantly increased traffic congestion, etc.
Please STOP this now – we can grow the city intelligently with the actual residents having a say and not misguided
council members and for “development” of the City ‐ look apple to apples in the last 15 years and the City has gone
from a thriving, busy yet manageable one to one with the worst traffic in all of LA – is that smart management ?
Thanks,
Ralph G Barton, Jr.
15 year Santa Monica resident
Item 7-E
09/24/19
7 of 11 Item 7-E
09/24/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ralph Barton <ralphbarton@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 22, 2019 6:55 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:R1 revision is a VERY BAD IDEA - sounds "great" but more traffic, crime and developer profits - we
the residents lose....
Please STOP R1 revisions – misguided attempt to solve a problem that was created by too much development, too
rapidly with increased crime, traffic and overall UN‐livability. Having multi‐unit in R1 or anything like that is going to
make this BETTER – no, it won’t….
Thanks,
Armanda Iorio
Santa Monica resident
Item 7-E
09/24/19
8 of 11 Item 7-E
09/24/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Karen Comegys-Wortz <kcomegyswortz@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 23, 2019 7:05 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Housing sizes
Dear Santa Monica Council Members,
I am a homeowner in Santa Monica.
My address is 1725 Cedar Street.
I like the 50% restriction on lot coverage.
This should include "granny flats".
Anything over 50% is Unacceptable.
Thank You,
Karen Comegys‐Wortz
‐‐
Karen Comegys Wortz
kcomegyswortz@gmail.com
Item 7-E
09/24/19
9 of 11 Item 7-E
09/24/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:William Reed <billreed1@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:43 AM
To:councilmtgitems; jmreed36@aol.com; billreed1@aol.com
Subject:2222 Pier Aver in Violation of R1 Zoning Code
24 September 2019
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
In August of 2018 the residence at 2222 Pier Avenue, which is R1 zoned with only R1 residences adjacent, was listed on
at least three web sites, which are Abodo, Zumper, Hotpads, as “several (nine to be specific) private bedrooms . . . have
your own lease agreement separate from other housemates . . . lease lengths are flexible depending on how long you are
planning to stay.”
We with other neighbors filed a complaint (ours was 11 August 2018) following the procedure issued by the city. Friends
of Sunset Park (FOSP) was notified about this residence and submitted the information to Government Outreach. Also
notified were the City Manager and many other city zoning code enforcement employees. The three web sites advertising
the ‘nine apartments’ were provided as well.
Since August 2018 no member of the property owner’s family has lived at this residence. This property is in an R1 zoned
area and is being utilized as an apartment dwelling – NOT a multi-family residence.
Question to you! If you resided in an R1 zoned area and this occurred in your neighborhood, what would you do?
William and Janice Reed
2215 Pier Ave.
Item 7-E
09/24/19
10 of 11 Item 7-E
09/24/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Clay <cth1999@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 24, 2019 12:21 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Revisions restricting house size
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Clay <cth1999@yahoo.com>
To: Ross.Fehrman@smgov.net <Ross.Fehrman@smgov.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019, 07:04:47 AM PDT
Subject: Revisions restricting house size
Dear Santa Monica City Council, My name is Clayton Hinshaw, I have owned my house on 318 Euclid St. Santa
Monica, CA 904042 for approximately 4 years. I have an older 1920s craftsman style bungalow house that is about 2000
square feet. In my opinion the proposed law restricting new house construction square footage to 50% of lot size is too
small and I would like to see it increased. Perhaps a compromise would be 75% of lot size. I also think the height of the
house should be allowed to be a few feet higher than what is proposed.
Thankyou for your consideration,
Clayton Hinshaw MD
318 Euclid ST
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 7-E
09/24/19
11 of 11 Item 7-E
09/24/19
CITY COUNCIL MEETING Item 7.E
R1 IZO (2572) Extension
September 24, 2019
•R1 Update continued to October 22, 2019 Council meeting
•R1 Interim Zoning Ordinance (IZO) 2572 set to expire
November 15, 2019:
•Reduced maximum building height to 28 feet
•Limited maximum parcel coverage to overall 50% on a sliding
scale with a maximum 20% parcel coverage for the second story
•Required that upper level stepbacks are measured from the
second story
•Limited aggregate second-story balconies and decks to an
aggregate of 400 SF
•Eliminated accessory dwelling units from parcel coverage
calculations
•Proposed IZO extension until December 31, 2019
REFERENCE:
Ordinance No. 2569
(CCS)
&
Ordinance No. 2572
(CCS)