SR 10-15-2019 7A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 15, 2019
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Lane Dilg, City Attorney, City Attorney’s Office
Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of an Interim Zoning Ordinance Extending
Interim Zoning Ordinance Numbers 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 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
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.
Executive Summary
At its meeting on September 24, 2019, the City Council introduced for first reading an
Interim Zoning Ordinance extending Interim Zoning Ordinance Numbers 2569 (CCS)
and 2575 (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 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.
The ordinance is now presented to City Council for adoption.
2 of 2
Prepared By: Elsa Kapsinow, Executive Assistant to the City Attorney
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. PCD - IZO - R-1 - 2nd Rdg - 10.15.2019
B. Written Comments
1
City Council Meeting: October 15, 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 serious 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 larger 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 buildin g 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 develo pment 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:CJ Johnson <cjohnsonx91@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 10, 2019 1:52 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Repeal the IZO. Stop encroaching on private property rights!
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Please encourage more big houses in Sunset Park. I hate that we are considered the shabby area of Santa
Monica. Residents who like their small houses can keep them ‐ I'm not asking them to change their houses. And they
shouldn't be imposing their personal taste on others. What's wrong with big houses anyway? This is a city and we
should be making as efficient use of the land as possible.
There are apartment houses and condo buildings one block away, stores around the corner from residences, and you're
going to limit a 2nd story residence by a few more inches?! Plus the IZO and any additional restrictions you are
considering are totally unfair to those who purchased their home prior to its enactment with plans to replace their
1940's bungalow with a stately home more appropriate for their multi‐million dollar lot.
I heard someone complain that 2nd stories let people see into their backyard. So? Private activities should stay inside
closed doors! If they want more privacy than walls and roofs provide, they shouldn't be living in a city.
Flat roofs should also be allowed to be as tall as pitched roofs. Pitched roofs are for climates with snow! They are dumb
in this climate and a waste of valuable space.
Item 7-A Adjourned Meeting
10/15/19
Item 7-A Adjourned Meeting
10/15/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Kjbloore <kjbloore@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, October 14, 2019 3:46 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:R1 Development Standards
I attended one of the community outreach meetings concerning changes to R1 Development Standards.
I live on Franklin Street between Lipton and Montana on a hill. I have a friend who is a neighbor who lives 3
doors south of me, who has lived through a construction nightmare for the last 3+ years with 2 monster houses
being built-one behind her on Berkeley and the other to her South. She bought her home largely for the view,
which she no longer has. Her entire house is in darkness almost all day. These newly constructed homes take
up the ENTIRE property and have been allowed to be built so high that it is ridiculous. Something needs to be
changed regarding how much of the lot can be used for structures, limiting the height, and protecting
surrounding homes' views.
I know of no other city that does not have rules for protecting views. But apparently, Santa Monica does not.
You are responsible for zoning changes, and now it is time for you to do your job.
Kay Bloore
808 Franklin Street
Santa Monica
Item 7-A Adjourned Meeting
10/15/19
Item 7-A Adjourned Meeting
10/15/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:C Hartung <cohartung@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11:13 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:R-1 Zoning 9-24-19 R-1 Standards Update
As a long-time Santa Monica resident, I strongly support the proposed R-1 zoning update.
We live in an original Santa Monica house in the north of Montana area. A very large home has been
built next to us and the impact on our lives has been substantial. Many of the issues go beyond what
the R-1 standards update, but at least this is a start. We are over-shadowed now by large windows
with bright lights, often on all night. Our back yard feel like its in a vault with the tall walls next to us.
You've heard many times about the impact on the character of the neighborhoods being changed by
houses that are built to maximize the square footage on the lot. I was born in Santa Monica and my
husband and I have lived here for nearly 50 years. The walk-able human scale of our town is getting
lost, more rapidly now than ever. Somewhere, this over-building needs to be curbed for for the sake
of quality of life.
Please permanently implement the proposed change. They are minimal, but they will help stop the
progressive degradation of our open space and negative impact of these large homes on the entire
neighborhood.
Thank you,
Candice Hartung
Item 7-A Adjourned Meeting
10/15/19
Item 7-A Adjourned Meeting
10/15/19