SR 10-22-2019 7F
City Council Report
City Council Meeting: October 22, 2019
Agenda Item: 7.F
1 of 39
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, City Planning
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Text of the
City’s Zoning Ordinance Related to R1 (Single-Unit Residential) Development
Standards
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance
amending the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance related to development standards for
the R1 (Single-Unit Residential) District.
Executive Summary
In the City’s General Plan, the first of eight framework elements that form the core of the
Land Use and Circulation Elements is “Neighborhood Conservation and Enhancement.”
That principle mandates the City to “protect and conserve the character and scale of
Santa Monica’s neighborhoods.
Numerous neighborhood groups and individual residents have expressed concerns
about the size and scale of recently-constructed Single-Unit Dwellings (SUDs) within the
City’s R1 Districts and about the demolition and loss of older existing homes and the
resulting change in neighborhood character. In response to these community concerns
and to ensure the character of existing R1 neighborhoods is preserved, the City Council
adopted an Interim Zoning Ordinance (IZO) in February 2018 which amended portions
of Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.07.030 to temporarily revise the
development standards and reduce the sizes of residences that could be built. In April
2018, the City Council extended the IZO until November 2019, and directed staff to
research and draft a comprehensive update to the R1 development standards during
this time. On October 15, 2019, the City Council extended the IZO until December 31,
2020 to allow for the proposed revised development standards to take effect on January
2 of 39
1, 2020 and allow adequate time for public notification of the update development
standards.
This review and update process has included significant public engagement intended to
address and be guided by the following principles:
• Re-evaluate the R1 development standards to address the size of new home
construction in relation to the existing neighborhood context and scale.
• Incentivize the retention of existing homes.
• Make the development standards more user-friendly.
The R1 development standards update process began in January 2019 with five R1
technical working group sessions held through April 2019. Following the technical
working group sessions, three community open house events were held in May 2019 to
gather additional public input. In June 2019, the Planning Commission reviewed the
public input provided by the technical working group and the stakeholders who
participated in the community open houses and provided feedback and direction on
specific development standards to staff. On August 7, 2019, the Commission adopted a
resolution recommending that the Council make amendments to the text of the Zoning
Ordinance related to R1 development standards.
The proposed redline modifications in Attachment A represent an amalgamation of the
recommendations provided by the Planning Commission and the extensive input
provided by the public, including the technical working group, and staff. This includes
proposed reductions to the maximum allowable parcel coverage and height of buildings,
additional upper-story stepbacks, proposed incentives to retain existing homes, and
proposed changes to make the R1 development standards more user-friendly. This
report recommends that the City Council amend the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance
related to R1 development standards. Differences between the proposed ordinance
and the redline modifications in Attachment A are intended to be non-substantive and to
provide greater clarity and transparency for those subject to the ordinance.
3 of 39
Background
R1 Single-Unit Residential District
The current R1 development standards have remained fairly unchanged since specific
amendments were made as part of a comprehensive update approximately 20 years
ago. The organization of these development standards and their implementation have
stayed relatively consistent through the recent updates to the Land Use and Circulation
Element (LUCE) and the Zoning Ordinance.
Organization
The over 6,000 R1-zoned parcels within the City are found within four delineated,
geographic areas:
• North of Montana – the area bounded by Montana Avenue, the northern City
limits, 26th Street, and Ocean Avenue.
• North of Wilshire – the area bounded by Montana Avenue, 21st Court, Wilshire
Boulevard, and the City limits to the east.
• Expo/Pico – the area bounded by Stewart Avenue, Exposition Boulevard,
Centinela Avenue, and Pico Boulevard.
• Sunset Park – the area bounded by Lincoln Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and the
City limits to the east and south.
4 of 39
Figure 1: The four R1 geographic areas.
The R1 development standards listed in SMMC Section 9.07.030 are organized into one
table that splits the development standards into a general standard that applies
throughout the R1 zoning district, unless otherwise specified, and special varying
standards that apply to development within the separate geographic areas. The table
also references subsections that follow the table that describe additional development
standards and also cross-references other sections of the Zoning Ordinance that are
applicable to the R1 district.
5 of 39
Figure 2: A portion of the R1 development standards table in SMMC Section 9.07.030 showing the
formatting and organization of the development standards. (GS = General Standard)
Implementation
The implementation of several key development standards helps to define the maximum
buildable envelope and ultimately the typical building massing of new R1 development.
These development standards include setbacks, height, parcel coverage, and upper-
story stepbacks as illustrated below:
6 of 39
Figure 3: Typical R1 building massing through the implementation of current R1 development
standards.
Community Concerns
Several neighborhood groups and individual residents have expressed concern about
the size and scale of recently constructed SUDs within the City’s R1 districts. While this
new construction complied with the R1 development standards, it often significantly
increased the size of dwellings’ square footage as compared to existing homes that
were replaced. Neighborhood groups and individuals are concerned with the impacts of
new development and alterations to existing structures that appear inconsistent with the
character, scale, and mass of the existing built environment and potential impacts to
neighboring residences. In addition, concern was expressed with the demolition and
loss of older existing homes and the resulting change in neighborhood character.
R1 Interim Zoning Ordinance
In response to these community concerns, on February 13, 2018, the City Council
adopted an IZO which amended portions of SMMC Section 9.07.030 to revise the
development standards for maximum parcel coverage, maximum building height,
additional minimum stepbacks for upper stories, limitations on aggregate floor area for
7 of 39
upper-story decks and balconies, and exclusion of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
from parcel coverage in the R1 zoning district.
The IZO become effective on March 16, 2018. Its changes applied to any project
application in the R1 district determined to be complete after February 23, 2018.
On April 10, 2018, the City Council extended the IZO until November 15, 2019 and
directed staff to research and draft a comprehensive update to the R1 development
standards during this time.
The changes to the specific R1 development standards in the IZO are detailed in the
following table:
R1 Development Standard Zoning Ordinance Interim Zoning Ordinance
Maximum Building Height 28’ – 35’ 28’
Maximum Parcel Coverage
First Story
Second Story
61% (Total)
35-40% (1st story)
26-30% (2nd story)
50% (Total)
30-50% (1st story)
20% (2nd story)
Upper Story Stepback Applies above 14’ in height Applies to entire second story
Maximum Upper Story
Decks/Balconies
400 SF aggregate
(North of Montana only. No limits
in other R1 districts.)
400 SF aggregate
(All R1 districts)
Accessory Dwelling Unit Included in parcel coverage
calculations
Excluded from parcel coverage
calculations
Table 1: IZO Changes to the R1 Development Standards
Implementation of the IZO development standards resulted in reduced building massing
for a typical R1 development compared to the current Zoning Ordinance development
standards as illustrated below. However, while the overall allowable size of a residence
was decreased by the IZO, the massing appearance at the front of the residence as
visible from the public right-of-way remains primarily unchanged.
8 of 39
Figure 4: Comparison of typical potential R1 building massing between the Zoning Ordinance and IZO
development standards.
The IZO is set to expire on November 15, 2019, unless it is otherwise extended by the
City Council pursuant to SMMC Section 9.46.090. On October 15, 2019, the Council
adopted an IZO to extend these interim standards until December 31, 2019.
Purpose of the R1 Development Standards Update
In addition to its action to adopt the IZO and as a part of the City Council’s previous
discussion of City Planning Division priorities, the Council prioritized the comprehensive
review and update of the R1 development standards. This review and update process
was to include a significant public engagement process and was intended to address
and be guided by the following principles:
• Re-evaluate R1 development standards to address the size of new home
construction in relation to the existing neighborhood context and scale.
• Incentivize the retention of existing homes.
• Make the development standards more user-friendly.
R1 Development Standards Update Process
Throughout the R1 development standards update process, staff has sought the input of
a variety of constituents and a wide spectrum of those who use or are affected by the
R1 development standards including, but not limited to, property owners, residents,
9 of 39
neighborhood group representatives, architects, contractors, and design professionals.
The update process to date is summarized below. For more specific information and
details on the update process along with an extensive recap of the public input
provided, please see the Planning Commission staff report from June 19, 2019
(Attachment D).
Technical Working Group
On January 30, 2019, a technical working group was assembled for a kick-off meeting
to begin discussing the R1 development standards update. The technical working group
was made up of a collection of architects, contractors, community representatives, and
other design professionals who had knowledge and experience working on single-unit
residential projects in Santa Monica and could provide input and identify issues.
Subsequent to the kick-off session, four additional technical working group sessions
were help in March and April 2019. Between 15 and 30 volunteers attended each
technical working group session. The issues discussed and identified by the technical
working group were instrumental in focusing the broader public discussion of the R1
development standards at the subsequent community open house events.
10 of 39
Figure 5: A technical working group consisting of architects, contractors, community representatives,
and other design professionals with knowledge and experience working on R1 projects in Santa Monica
provided input and identified issues over five sessions related to R1 development standards.
Community Open Houses
Three identical community open house events were held on the evening of May 18,
2019, during the afternoon of May 21, 2019, and on the evening of May 21, 2019, at the
Santa Monica Civic Auditorium East Wing to provide information and education to the
public as well to gather additional public input regarding the R1 development standards.
These community open house events were scheduled both on a weekend and a
weekday, and during and after business hours, in an attempt to attract the widest
spectrum of participants possible. Public notice of the community open house events
was sent via mailed postcards to all R1 property owners, published in the Santa Monica
Daily Press, and posted to the City’s website. Approximately 150 members of the public
attended the three open house events with approximately 90% of the attendants
identifying as residents of the City. The open houses though were not strictly restricted
to residents of the City as some R1 property owners and some design and industry
professionals who work on R1 projects may not be residents of the City.
11 of 39
Figure 6: Three community open house events provided opportunities to provide information to the
public as well as gather additional public input regarding certain R1 development standards.
The open houses were designed as interactive events in an effort to engage all
participants. Each open house began with a brief staff presentation that provided
background information on the R1 development standards and the update process, the
purpose and format of the open house, and an explanation as to how to participate
12 of 39
during the rest of the event. The open house participants were then invited to explore
the various development standard stations that were set up around the room. In an
effort to focus on the primary issues of home size and massing and the retention of
existing homes, the various stations were focused on the following development
standards:
• Parcel Coverage
• Height
• Setbacks and Upper-Story Stepbacks
• Upper-Story Outdoor Space
• Parking
• Retention of Existing Homes
• Other (for any other R1 development standards that attendees wanted to
discuss)
At each station, a City Planning staff member was present to facilitate the public
interaction and answer any questions. Each member of the public was given dot
stickers and asked to provide input on poster boards based on questions pertaining to
each development standard. Each participant could then place their stickers on the
poster boards to provide their opinions on the various development standards. Each
poster board also provided participants an area to attach written comments related to
the corresponding development standard.
Planning Commission Review and Recommendation
On June 19 and August 7, 2019, the Planning Commission reviewed the public input
provided by the technical working group and the stakeholders who participated in the
community open houses and provided feedback and direction on specific development
standards to staff. In particular, the Commission provided direction on the following:
13 of 39
• Development standards that most relate to building size and massing: parcel
coverage, height, setbacks, upper-story stepbacks, and upper-story outdoor
space
• R1 parking standards and incentives to retain existing homes
• Other R1 related development standards
The following table summarizes the Commission’s recommendation on a number of R1-
related development standards:
Development Standards – General Planning Commission Direction
1
• Should development standards be standardized
citywide or should we maintain in some cases
neighborhood specific standards?
Standardized citywide.
Parcel Coverage Planning Commission Direction
2
• What is the appropriate amount of parcel
coverage?
• One-story structures: 50% with more
parcel coverage allowed for smaller
parcels.
• Existing one-story structures with
one-story additions: 55% with more
parcel coverage allowed for smaller
parcels.
• Two-story structures: 45% aggregate
with more parcel coverage allowed
for smaller parcels.
3 • How should parcel coverage be distributed
between first and second stories? No specific limit on the 2nd story.
4 • Should ADUs be excluded or included in parcel
coverage? Excluded from parcel coverage.
Height Planning Commission Direction
5 • What should the maximum building height be? 28 feet with the upper-story stepback
plane angle at 45 degrees.
6 • Should a flat roof have a different maximum
height limit? And if so, what?
23 feet for a flat roof with no 45-degree
upper-story stepback angle.
Setbacks & Upper-Story Stepbacks Planning Commission Direction
7 • Should side setbacks be aggregate or
symmetrical? Aggregate.
8
• How much upper-story stepback should be
required?
More than is currently required along
the front and side elevations. Rear
setback and stepback requirement
should be the same amount.
9 • Should stepbacks be eliminated in favor of
larger setbacks? No.
Upper-Story Outdoor Space Planning Commission Direction
14 of 39
10
• What is an appropriate limit for upper-story
outdoor space? Or should there be no limit?
No aggregate limit necessary, but roof
decks should require additional
setbacks.
11 • Should upper-story outdoor space have an
aggregate limit or individual size limit?
No aggregate limit but possibly
individual size limits.
12
• Should certain upper-story outdoor spaces have
additional setbacks?
Additional setbacks for roof decks and
any upper-story outdoor space in the
rear half of a parcel.
Parking Planning Commission Direction
13
• Should the minimum parking requirement be
required to be located within an enclosed
garage?
Enclosed garages should not be
required.
14
• Where should parking be allowed? Should the
locational restrictions be loosened to allow
greater flexibility?
Anywhere behind the first-story facade
of the house.
Retention of Existing Homes Planning Commission Direction
15
• Which incentives should be considered for the
retention of existing homes?
• Allow continuation of nonconforming
setbacks in certain situations.
• Allow continuation of non-conforming
height in certain situations.
• Allow additions without parking to be
updated.
• Create opportunities for additional
modifications to development standards.
• Create an easier review process for
development standard modifications.
• Allow additional parcel coverage for
single-story dwellings.
Remove the threshold for residential
additions triggering full compliance with
parking and circulation standards.
Expand ability to extend nonconforming
setbacks for residential additions in
certain situations.
16 • Are there other incentives that should be
considered? Explore other incentives.
Projections & Height Exceptions Planning Commission Direction
17 • Should existing projection and height exceptions
be updated? Yes.
18 • Should there be an R1 specific projection and
height exceptions table?
If deemed to be necessary and
beneficial.
Basements & Lightwells Planning Commission Direction
19 • Should basement size be limited? No.
20 • Should lightwell development standards be
standardized citywide? Yes.
Design Review Planning Commission Direction
21 • Should ARB be allowed to review and approve
more development standard modifications? No.
22 • Should ARB’s purview of hillside development
expand to North of Montana? Yes.
23 • Should ARB’s purview expand beyond hillside No.
15 of 39
development?
Hillside Development Planning Commission Direction
24
• Should Santa Monica have hillside development
specific standards? If so, possible considerations
might be:
o Maximum parcel coverage limitation
o Maximum building height
o Maximum number of stories
o Maximum amount of upper-story outdoor
space and how it is defined
o Basement limitation
o Excavation and grading/soil export limits
o View protection
o Reviewing body and entitlement
procedures
Yes, staff should look into it and if more
time is necessary, development
standards for hillside parcels could
potentially become a separate work
effort beyond the general R1
development standards.
25 • Should the ARB’s review of hillside development
be expanded to include North of Montana? Yes.
26
• Should the ARB have the ability to modify
development standards for hillside
development?
Depends on what the proposed hillside
standards end up being.
Table 2: Planning Commission Direction for R1 Development Standards
The proposed development standards modifications in Attachment A represent an
amalgamation of the input provided by the public; the technical working group; the
direction provided by the Planning Commission on June 19, 2019 and their subsequent
recommendation on August 7, 2019; and staff. In Attachment A, the redline
modifications represent the initially proposed changes to the R1-related development
standards based on the public input and initial Planning Commission direction. The
greenline modifications represent additional changes recommended by the Planning
Commission on August 7, 2019. The blueline modifications represent additional non-
substantive revisions proposed by staff subsequent to the Planning Commission’s
recommendation intended to provide greater clarity and transparency for those subject
to the ordinance. The totality of these proposed modifications is also presented in the
proposed ordinance (Attachment F).
Discussion
16 of 39
As opposed to detailing every proposed change to the R1 and R1-related development
standards included in Attachment A, this staff report focuses on the proposed changes
that most relate to the three primary goals of the R1 development standards update:
• Size of new home construction.
• Incentives for the retention of existing homes.
• User-friendly development standards.
The staff report also focuses on the development standards of which the proposed
changes represent somewhat of a departure from the existing standards.
Size of New Home Construction
Parcel Coverage
• Current Development Standards:
The following table presents the R1 development standards (pre-IZO) and the
temporary changes imposed by the IZO pertaining to parcel coverage:
R1 Development Standards Interim Zoning Ordinance
North of Montana/Sunset Park/North of
Wilshire:
▪ One-story structure not exceeding
18’ in height – 50%
▪ Two-story structure – Aggregate
61%
▪ First Story: 31% - 40%
▪ Second Story: 21% - 30%
Expo/Pico:
▪ Parcels 5,001 SF or larger – 40%
▪ Parcels between 3,001 and 5,000
SF – 50%
▪ Parcels 3,000 SF or smaller – 60%
Citywide:
▪ One-story structure not exceeding
18’ in height – 50%
▪ Two-story structure – Aggregate
50% with the second story not to
exceed 20%
▪ Excluded Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs) from parcel coverage
• What We Heard:
Staff received the following feedback regarding parcel coverage development
standards:
o Technical Working Group
▪ If parcel coverage does not stay at 61%, it should be somewhere
between 61% and 50% (IZO)
17 of 39
▪ Provide more size flexibility between the first and story stories for
design variety
▪ Continue to exempt ADUs or at least exempt a certain size amount
o Community Open Houses:
▪ Consensus for smaller homes, with the average parcel coverage
preference being approximately 55%
▪ Preference for larger first stories in comparison to second stories
▪ Continue to exempt ADUs
o Planning Commission:
▪ Limit parcel coverage to no more than 45% for new two-story
structures, 50% for new one-story structures, and 55% for existing
one-story structures with one-story additions
▪ Consider more parcel coverage for smaller parcels (5,000 SF or
less)
▪ Continue to exempt ADUs
• Proposed Development Standards:
The following table presents the proposed R1 development standards pertaining to
parcel coverage:
Maximum Parcel Coverage (% of Parcel Area)
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
One-story structure
less than 18 ft. in
height
50%
For parcels less than 5,000 sq.
ft., a maximum parcel coverage
equaling 2,500 sq. ft. shall be
permitted.
Existing one-story
structure less than
18 ft. in height with
one-story additions
less than 18 ft. in
height
55%
For parcels less than 5,000 sq.
ft., a maximum parcel coverage
equaling 2,750 sq. ft. shall be
permitted.
One-story structure
18 ft. or more in
height
45%
For parcels less than 5,000 sq.
ft., a maximum parcel coverage
equaling 2,250 sq. ft. shall be
permitted.
18 of 39
Two-story structure
45%
Parcel coverage shall be the
sum of first story and second
story parcel coverage
For parcels less than 5,000 sq.
ft., a maximum parcel coverage
equaling 2,250 sq. ft. shall be
permitted with no more than
1,125 sq. ft. allowable on the
second story.
Accessory Dwelling
Unit
Exempt from parcel coverage
in R1 district. See Section 9.31.300
• Intent of Proposed Development Standards
Parcel coverage is one of the main development standards that controls the size of
home construction. The proposed revisions as shown above reduce the maximum
allowable parcel coverage of a two-story structure from an aggregate 61% to 45% as
recommended by the Planning Commission, which is lower than the overall parcel
coverage limitation of 50% established by the IZO. The Commission considered an
overall parcel coverage limitation of 50% for two-story structures, but ultimately lowered
their recommendation to 45%. The Commission’s recommendation for a lower parcel
coverage for a two-story structure was in part to incentivize the potential construction of
more one-story structures that would be less impactful to the neighborhood in regards to
size and scale in comparison to a two-story building. The Commission also factored in
the proposed elimination of enclosed garage requirement as well as the exemption of
parcel coverage for ADUs. Additionally, the Commission recommended a higher
allowable parcel coverage for an existing one-story structure that proposes a one-story
addition. The intent of this increase in allowable parcel coverage is intended to
incentivize the retention of existing homes while still encouraging one-story buildings.
Based on Commission direction, a provision has also been included to guarantee a
maximum parcel coverage equaling 2,250 SF for parcels less than 5,000 SF. This
provision would allow substandard sized parcels less than 5,000 SF area additional
parcel coverage and the ability to build a comparable sized home as standard parcels
but still proportional with their parcel size. ADUs are proposed to continue to be exempt
from parcel coverage in the R1 district to encourage their development pursuant to
State law.
Height
• Current Development Standards:
19 of 39
The following table presents the R1 development standards (pre-IZO) and the
temporary changes imposed by the IZO pertaining to height:
R1 Development Standards Interim Zoning Ordinance
Maximum Number of Stories – 2
Maximum Building Height:
▪ Parcels up to 20,000 SF
▪ General Standard – 28’
▪ North of Montana – 32’
▪ Parcels greater than 20,000 SF and
with a front property line of 200’
▪ 28’ for flat roof
▪ 35’ for pitched roof
Maximum Building Height:
▪ Parcels up to 20,000 SF
▪ General Standard – 28’
▪ North of Montana – 32’
Additional Side Stepback Above 21’ in
Height:
▪ General Standard – 45-degrees
measured from the vertical
▪ North of Montana – 30-degrees
measured from the horizontal.
Citywide:
▪ Maximum Building Height - 28’
• What We Heard:
Staff received the following feedback regarding height development standards:
o Technical Working Group
▪ There should be different heights for flat and pitched roofs
▪ 45-degree buildable envelope should be implemented citywide as it
offers more design flexibility
▪ Higher heights for larger parcels
o Community Open Houses:
▪ Building height should be limited to 28’ through the R1 district
▪ Flat roofs should have a height limit lower than 28’
o Planning Commission:
▪ Maximum building height should be 28’ throughout the R1 district
▪ 45-degree buildable envelope should be implemented citywide
20 of 39
▪ Flat roofs should have a maximum height of 23’, but do not need to
comply with the 45-degree angle at 21’ high
• Proposed Development Standards:
The following table presents the proposed R1 development standards pertaining
to height:
Maximum Building Height (ft.)
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Parcels up to 20,000
sq. ft. in area
28 ft.
with no wall height above 23 ft.
Parcels greater than
20,000 sq. ft. in area
and with a front parcel
line at least 200 ft. in
length
• 28 ft. for flat roof
• 32 ft. for pitched roof
Projections into
Height Limits See Section 9.21.060, Height Projections
Additional Minimum Stepbacks for Upper Stories
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Sides—All portions of
buildings exceeding 23
ft. in height
• No portion of a building,
except permitted
projections, shall intersect a
plane commencing at 23 ft.
in height at the minimum
side setback that extends at
an angle of 45-degrees from
the vertical toward the
interior of the site.
• The 23 ft. height
measurement shall be taken
from the same reference
grade as determined for the
subject site pursuant to
Section 9.04.050.
• Intent of Proposed Development Standards:
Building height is regulated by three development standards within the current code and
the IZO, establishing a set number of stories, maximum building height, and additional
side stepback above 21’ in height. Combined, these three standards establish a vertical
21 of 39
building envelope that the primary structure must fit within. In regards to the side
stepback above 21’, the current standards allow no portion of the building, except
permitted projections, to intersect a plane commencing at 21’ in height at the minimum
side setback and extending at a specified angle towards the interior of the site. This
development standard helps control massing as the building height increases over 21’
by pushing the massing inward and away from neighboring properties. The proposed
revisions address two issues - overall building height and vertical wall height below roof
structures. The overall maximum building height is proposed to remain at 28’ high,
consistent with the IZO. However, based on public input and Commission direction, in
order to allow flat-roofed structures some flexibility for additional height but lower than
the maximum 28’ height limit, a vertical wall height limitation of 23’ has been proposed.
This new vertical wall height limit would provide additional flexibility to flat-roofed
buildings compared to the existing standards but would require these types of buildings
to be 5’ lower in height than a pitched roof building. This limitation would decrease the
overall potential massing for a flat-roofed building by preventing a flat roofed building
from setting back their second story to avoid the stepback angle and then building
additional vertical massing to the maximum 28’ height. Once a vertical wall reaches 23’
in height, a building would have to start a pitched roof that brings in the massing of the
building towards the center of the parcel. However, a property owner could still start a
pitched roof at a lower height if a certain pitched roof style or design is preferred.
The diagrams below illustrate the proposed changes to the additional minimum
stepback for upper stories now proposed above 23’ and a comparison of what
limiting a vertical wall height to 23’ would do to a flat and pitched roofed building.
Additional Minimum Stepbacks for Upper Stories
R1 Development Standards & Proposed Standards
22 of 39
Interim Zoning Ordinance
Height Limit for Flat vs. Pitched Roofs
Flat Roof at 23’ Height Limit Pitched Roof at 28’ Height Limit with
Vertical Walls at 23’ Height Limit
Upper-Story Stepbacks
• Current Development Standards:
The following table presents the R1 development standards (pre-IZO) and the
temporary changes imposed by the IZO pertaining to upper-story stepbacks:
R1 Development Standards Interim Zoning Ordinance
Front – Any portion of the front elevation
above 14’ in height and exceeding 75%
of the maximum buildable front elevation:
▪ General Standard – Average
amount equal to 4% of parcel
depth, but no more than 10’
required
▪ North of Montana – Average
amount equal to 8% of parcel
depth, but no more than 12’
required
Rear – Any portion of rear elevation
above 14’ in height and exceeding 75%
of maximum buildable rear elevation:
▪ General Standard – Average
amount equal to 4% of parcel
depth, but no more than 10’
required
▪ North of Montana – 30% of parcel
depth, but no more than 40’
required
Sides – Portions of building above 14’ in
height and exceeding 50% of maximum
buildable side elevation:
▪ 1’ for every 2’-4” of height above
Citywide:
▪ Changed each standard to start at
the second-story instead of 14’ in
height
23 of 39
14’ and up to 21’ (measured from
minimum required side setback
line)
• What We Heard:
Staff received the following feedback regarding upper-story stepback development
standards:
o Technical Working Group
▪ Articulation of the second story is just as impactful as parcel
coverage in terms of massing appearance
▪ Stepbacks should be calculated based on building, not maximum
buildable elevation
▪ Prescribed stepbacks hinder design
▪ Simplify implementation and provide more flexibility
o Community Open Houses:
▪ Divided feedback between less and more stepbacks
o Planning Commission:
▪ Required more stepbacks, especially at the front
▪ Standardize implementation
• Proposed Development Standards:
The following table presents the proposed R1 development standards pertaining
to upper-story stepbacks:
Additional Minimum Stepbacks for Upper Stories
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
24 of 39
Front Upper-Story
Stepback
The sum of all stepback areas shall
be at least 1% of total parcel area
and comply with the following:
• Each stepback area shall have
a minimum depth of 3% of total
parcel depth and shall be
measured from the required
front setback.
• Any stepback area exceeding
6% of total parcel depth from
the required front setback shall
not be included calculating
compliance with this standard.
• Any stepback area used to
comply with the side upper-
story stepback requirement
shall not be included in
calculating compliance with this
standard.
• This standard shall apply to the
total front building elevation
Side Upper-Story
Stepbacks
The sum of all stepback areas shall
be at least 1% of total parcel area
and comply with the following:
• Each stepback area shall have
a minimum depth of 20% of
total parcel width and shall be
measured from the side parcel
line.
• Any stepback area with a depth
exceeding 25% of total parcel
width from the side parcel line
shall not be included in
calculating compliance with this
standard.
• Any stepback areas used to
comply with the front upper-
story stepback requirement
shall not be included in the
calculations for compliance
with this standard.
• This standard shall apply to
each total side building
elevation.
25 of 39
• Intent of Proposed Development Standards:
Combined with parcel coverage limitations, upper-story stepbacks are one of the main
development standards that control massing. Stepbacks are additional setbacks that
regulate the upper story massing and create articulation and modulation to the second
story. These measurements currently begin after each setback ends and are
determined based on multiple calculations involving the maximum buildable elevations
which are the width or length of the parcel minus the applicable required setbacks.
The proposed upper-level stepback standards seek to simplify the calculations
for the minimum required stepback areas while also increasing the minimum
required areas pursuant to Commission direction. The revised calculations would
be based on parcel area instead of maximum buildable elevation dimensions. For
example, on a typical 50’ x 150’ (7,500 SF) parcel, the minimum upper-story front
stepback was originally required to be approximately 52.5 SF based on the
general standard. By now requiring the stepback area to be 1% of total parcel
area, the minimum required front stepback area would be 75 SF. In regards to a
side stepbacks, for a parcel with a depth of 150’, under current standards a
second-story side elevation could run approximately 57.5’ without any stepback
being required. The proposed stepback development standards have now been
designed to be required regardless of building length. A minimum and maximum
depth for the use of calculating each stepback has also been incorporated to
ensure the size of each stepback is impactful on the massing of the building and
to prevent minimal, unnoticeable stepbacks. However, a property owner could
elect to set back their home beyond what is required and not have to comply with
stepback requirements possibly resulting in a less-articulated building but one
that provides increased setbacks from their neighbors.
Below are diagrams illustrating various examples of how the proposed upper-
story stepback requirements can be implemented and the flexibility allowed in
meeting the proposed stepback requirements.
26 of 39
Implementation Examples of Proposed Upper-Story Stepback Requirements
Aggregate side
setbacks with
minimum required
depth stepbacks
Aggregate side
setbacks with
maximum depth
stepbacks that can
be used in
calculations to
meet stepback
requirements
Symmetrical side
setbacks with both
a minimum and
maximum side
stepback
Additional side
setbacks with no
stepbacks required
Upper-Story Outdoor Space
• Current Development Standards:
27 of 39
The following table presents the R1 development standards (pre-IZO) and the
temporary changes imposed by the IZO pertaining to upper-story outdoor space:
R1 Development Standards Interim Zoning Ordinance
Roof Decks:
▪ General Standard – Setback an
additional 3’ from required setback
▪ North of Montana – Setback 12’
from an interior property line
Limitation of Upper-Story Balconies and
Roof Decks:
▪ General Standard – N/A
▪ North of Montana:
▪ Aggregate area may not
exceed 400 SF
▪ All areas greater than 50 SF
that are located in the rear
two-thirds of the parcel shall
be set back 12’ from any
property line
Citywide:
▪ The aggregate square footage of
second story balconies, terraces, or
roof decks shall not exceed 400 SF
• What We Heard:
Staff received the following feedback regarding upper-story outdoor space development
standards:
o Technical Working Group
▪ Limit individual size, not aggregate
▪ Upper-story outdoor space is a great way to incorporate modulation
▪ Limitations should be proportionate to lot size
o Community Open Houses:
▪ Half of the participants felt 400 SF was too small, with another one-
fourth thinking there should be no limit
▪ One-fourth felt 400 SF was too excessive
▪ Desire for a size limit on individual sizes
▪ Limitations should be proportionate to lot size
o Planning Commission:
▪ There should be no aggregate limit, but possible individual size limit
▪ Bigger setbacks for roof decks
28 of 39
• Proposed Development Standards:
The following table presents the proposed R1 development standards pertaining
to upper-story outdoor space:
Upper-Story Outdoor Space
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Maximum Size of
Individual Balcony,
Terrace, Deck, First-
Story Roof Deck, or
Similar Outdoor Space
3% of parcel area or 300 sq.
ft., whichever is less
Individual balconies, terraces,
decks, first-story roof decks, or
other similar outdoor spaces
larger than 100 sq. ft. located
in the rear half of the parcel
shall be set back a minimum
distance of 20% of the parcel
width from the side parcel
lines.
Maximum Size of Roof
Deck above
Second Story
3% of parcel area or 300 sq.
ft., whichever is less
Maximum of 1 per parcel with
a 7 ft. minimum setback from
edge of building.
• Intent of Proposed Development Standards:
Upper-story outdoor space includes all balconies, terraces, or roof decks located
at the second story or higher. The proposed revisions to the upper-story outdoor
space standards have removed the aggregate size limitation in exchange for
individual size limitations. The intent is to allow upper-story outdoor space as a
tool to incorporate modulation into a building while also being cognizant of
limiting any potential noise or disturbance impacts to adjacent neighbors.
Individual upper-story outdoor spaces are proposed to be limited in proportion to
parcel area. For example, a 7,500 SF parcel would not be allowed to have any
individual upper-story outdoor space greater than 225 SF. However, in order to
protect privacy between neighbors, when a space is larger than 100 SF and
located in the rear half of the parcel, it would be required to be set back a
minimum 20% of parcel width (10’ on a 50’ wide parcel). The individual size
limitation is also imposed on second-story roof decks which have been proposed
to be set back an additional 7’ from building edges.
Incentives for the Retention of Existing Homes
29 of 39
Throughout the R1 update process, staff has heard the desire to provide incentives for
the retention of existing homes to help preserve the character of Santa Monica’s single-
unit neighborhoods. One of the main development standard challenges has been with
the difficulty in adding to an existing home due to restrictive parking standards. Pursuant
to SMMC Section 9.28.020(D)(1) in the current Zoning Ordinance, if 50% or more
additional square footage is added to the principal building, all parking standards must
be brought into compliance. This standard has the potential to require an applicant to
enlarge or construct a new garage, relocate existing parking, add new parking if no
parking currently exists, widen existing driveways, and other onerous improvements
which are often not possible due to the siting of older homes or significantly increase
construction costs. Based on public input and Planning Commission direction, staff has
proposed the removal of this requirement, thereby only requiring parking to be brought
into compliance when an existing house is determined to be demolished and a new
house is proposed.
Besides development standard modification and Variance processes, there are other
permitted development standard allowances for existing homes, such as reduced
setback requirements for additions to existing structures over 18 ft. on parcels that are
less than 50 ft. in width. Staff has also proposed additional flexibility to SMMC Section
9.21.170, Building Additions Extending into Required Side Setback, which currently
allows a nonconforming residential building addition to continue to extend into one
minimum side setback. As older homes often do not comply with current setback
requirements, in order for an addition to be better incorporated into an existing home,
staff has proposed that a building addition extending into a minimum side setback is not
limited to only one side setback and does not need to continue the façade setback line
of the existing structure as long as it is set back a minimum of 4 ft. to continue to allow
for adequate light and air between parcels.
To better bring attention to these incentives, staff has incorporated references to them
in the R1 Development Standards table.
User-Friendly Development Standards
30 of 39
Standardize Development Standards Citywide
Throughout the R1 update process, staff has heard at the various outreach efforts the
desire for standardized and more user-friendly development standards. Currently, the
R1 zone district is divided between four geographical areas: North of Montana, North of
Wilshire, Sunset Park, and Expo/Pico (see Figure 1). Between these four areas,
implementation of certain standards differ which has resulted in the R1 Development
Standards table being split into four columns (see Figure 2). To standardize the
development standards throughout the R1 district, staff has proposed a reorganization
of the R1 Development Standards table to be divided into two columns: one describing
the citywide standard and another identifying when development can deviate from the
citywide standard. This “Other Standards” column would also reference other relevant
Zoning Ordinance sections that may relate to the specific standard in order to be more
user-friendly. The reorganization of the table has also provided the ability to incorporate
and consolidate multiple standards, many of which are currently found in subsections
(A) – (H) of Table 9.07.030, into one table for ease of use. The new table organization is
shown below:
Figure 7: A portion of the R1 development standards table in SMMC Section 9.07.030 showing
the proposed formatting and organization of the development standards.
In addition, another concept for standardized development standards used throughout
the proposed revisions has been to make many of the standards based on percentages
of parcel area and dimensions. This method of calculation attempts to focus on
proportionality for development on respective parcels in an equitable way and to result
31 of 39
in development that is more consistent and compatible with the scale, mass, and
character with its surrounding neighborhood.
Determining Residential Parcel Coverage
The current standards of determining residential parcel coverage pursuant to SMMC
Section 9.04.100 have often led to confusion and various interpretations as to which
parts of buildings and structures are considered parcel coverage. The lack of enough
specific details in the current standards often results in the need for additional
explanations or unnecessary delays in project reviews. Staff has proposed a
reorganization and clarification of Section 9.04.100 to provide more details as to what
areas of principal buildings and accessory buildings and structures are included and
excluded in residential parcel coverage calculations. The clarifications aim to balance
the allowance and encouragement of certain building projections and spaces without
adding the appearance of undue massing and also to allow more design and
architectural flexibility.
Accessory Buildings & Structures, Height Exceptions, and Projections
Proposed modifications have been made to the Accessory Buildings and Structures
(SMMC Section 9.21.020), Height Exceptions (SMMC Section 9.21.060), and Projection
in Required Setbacks (SMMC Section 9.21.110) sections to better clarify and modernize
the current allowances. This includes features such as electric vehicle charging
equipment, tankless water heaters, and the differences between accessory buildings
and accessory structures in regards to where they are permitted to be located on a
parcel. Specific R1 related projections such as front porches have also been included
for better organizational purposes relating to location.
Basements, Lightwells, and Excavation
To standardized development standards throughout the R1 district, revisions are
proposed to development standards pertaining to the openness and use of setbacks
specifically in regards to basements and subterranean garages, lightwells and
stairwells, and excavation for access. The proposed revisions largely relate to locating
32 of 39
the development standards into the new R1 table, identifying what will be considered
the general standards, and when deviations from standards are allowed.
R1 Design Review
No building or structure in the R1 district is subject to architectural review except for
specific development listed in the R1 chapter such as duplexes or buildings located on
sloped parcels (described below). The design review section of the R1 chapter also lists
specific design modifications for R1 properties that the Architectural Review Board can
approve. Currently, this section of the chapter has been considered confusing to
understand in regards to what modification can be permitted and as to which relevant
findings of fact are required to be made. Staff has proposed a reorganization of this
section in order to be more user-friendly and has updated language to be consistent
with other sections of Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, pursuant to
Planning Commission direction, Architectural Review Board review of hillside projects is
now proposed to be included in the North of Montana area to be standardized and
consistent with the rest of the R1 areas.
Other Issues
Implementation and Timing of New Ordinance
On October 15, 2019, the Council adopted an IZO to extend the interim development
standards to December 31, 2020. Options to address the implementation of a new
ordinance include the following:
• Effective date of the new ordinance commences at IZO expiration on January 1,
2020,
• New ordinance may reach back to a specified date, or
• Fixed date for implementation possibly with an effective date beginning later than
January 1, 2020 in which case a short extension of the IZO would be required.
The Planning Commission has recommended an effective date of January 1, 2020 for
the proposed R1-related development standards in order to facilitate a smoother
regulatory transition and to allow adequate time for extensive public notification of the
33 of 39
updated development standards prior to the standards becoming effective. On October
15, 2019, the Council adopted an IZO to extend the interim development standards until
December 31, 2019 in accordance with this projected date. As discussed below, this
will also align implementation of new R1 development standards with the effective date
of new state law governing accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
Parking
Currently, the R1 zone district is the only district that requires required parking to be
located within an enclosed garage and for it to be located in the rear half of the parcel
unless there is no adjacent alley access. Through the various outreach efforts staff has
heard the request to not require parking to be located within an enclosed garage and to
provide more flexibility as to the allowable location of parking on a parcel. Based on
Planning Commission direction, staff has proposed revisions to eliminate the
requirement for an enclosed garage and to allow required parking to be located behind
the primary first-story façade facing a street. However, access would still be required to
be taken from an alley if an alley exists for new construction.
Hillside Development
At the June 19, 2019 Planning Commission study session, the Commission discussed
hillside development but requested additional information to fully understand the issues
being raised with respect to use of Segmented Average Natural Grade (SANG) and
Average Natural Grade (ANG) for height measurement on hillside properties. Given the
desire to ensure timely completion of the R1 update before expiration of the Interim
Zoning Ordinance and that hillside parcels represent a relatively small fraction of R1
properties, the Commission directed staff to consider the creation of specific hillside
development standards as a separate effort. The Commission also provided the
following comments and observations for further study:
• Ensure that hillside development standards reduce or eliminate the need to seek
Variances.
• How use of SANG and ANG affects height measurement and massing on hillside
properties.
34 of 39
• Hillside development standards should focus on how mass is perceived from the
street.
• Potential for different set of rules for downslope vs. upslope properties based on
level of visible mass as viewed from the street.
• View protection should not be a consideration or drive policy on hillside
developments.
Staff agrees with this approach as the timely completion of the R1 update for the vast
majority of parcels is necessary to provide certainty for homeowners. However,
additional time is needed to fully analyze the complexities involved in hillside
development in order to present policy options. The Zoning Ordinance has historically
not included specific development standards for hillside development, and the
application of standards meant for flat parcels has generally required many single-unit
dwellings to seek modifications or Variances for technical third stories, technical building
height increases (due to method of measurement), size of outdoor living area, and other
questions regarding setbacks and identification of yards due to largely non-rectilinear
parcels. Further, the application of standards meant for flat parcels has resulted in
significant excavations or fill, large retaining walls, and also concerns about erosion and
drainage to downslope properties. For this reason, staff will take additional time to
study hillside development with the technical working group and the community and
bring back policy options at a later meeting.
As summarized in the June 2019 Planning Commission staff report, the technical
working group provided the following comments with respect to hillside development:
• Create specific R1 development standards for hillsides in order to reduce need
for Variances.
• Continue to require design review and potentially expand scope of review but
threshold for sloped parcels may be too low.
• Consider flexibility for upper-story outdoor space for hillside parcels.
• Consider new way of measuring height on sloped parcels.
35 of 39
In reviewing all comments received thus far on this issue and taking into account the
Planning Commission’s direction, the following is a conceptual framework for hillside
developments that staff will further explore:
• Create a new definition of “hillside development”. This definition would establish
a new threshold for design review and ability to use development standards
specific to hillside properties.
• Require a slope analysis for hillside development, which must be prepared by a
registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor.
• Exclude steep areas from the parcel area that may be used in the parcel
coverage calculation (based on a slope analysis).
• Consider whether areas with extreme slope on properties should be restricted
from development except for landscaping and small accessory structures.
• Allow accessory structures up to certain size threshold to be exempt from design
review.
• Limit excavation.
Staff has also been reviewing the City of Los Angeles’ hillside ordinance in order to
create greater consistency in review since many of Santa Monica’s hillside parcels
border Los Angeles. Based on the Commission’s discussion and direction, staff will
undertake a separate work effort regarding R1 development standards for sloped
parcels.
Accessory Dwelling Units
In an effort to continue to make ADUs as feasible and livable as possible, staff has
proposed a revision to the outdoor exterior features standard which includes first-story
roof decks, landings, upper-level walkways, and balconies. Currently, these features are
limited to 35 square feet 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 centerline
of alley. This restriction has resulted in an undue burden on the development of ADUs,
36 of 39
especially when located above an existing garage. Staff has therefore proposed a less-
restrictive setback provision for these outdoor features to require a minimum 5-foot
setback from side and rear parcel lines while prohibiting outdoor spaces on the rear
elevation and side elevation closest to a side property line to ensure privacy for
neighboring parcels.
The California Legislature has also passed and the governor has signed four bills (AB
68, AB 587, AB 881, and SB 13) incentivizing construction and occupancy of ADUs.
Staff will return with proposed changes to ADU standards at a future meeting.
These new state law requirements have been anticipated for many months and were
considered in formulating the staff recommendations set forth in this staff report.
Solar Access
Comments regarding the impacts that new development may have on neighboring
properties in regards to solar access have been discussed throughout the update
process. The concern is that new larger development will block the sun exposure to
adjacent properties and will therefore diminish solar energy potential. However, this
concern is a citywide issue and is not specific to the R1 zone district. Additionally, in
consultation with the City’s Office of Sustainability and the Environment (OSE), blocking
of solar access has not been identified as a substantial issue in Santa Monica’s
residential neighborhoods, with only one issue having been reported. This is largely due
to policies and development standards already in place regarding parcel size, height
limits, and setbacks. The City also already has a process in place to address shading of
solar systems by existing street trees. State laws currently exist that allow for voluntary
solar easements between property owners and a means to address existing solar
panels being shaded by new tree growth (Shade Control Act). However, a handful of
cities nationwide have further enacted solar access policies and standards, such as
“solar fences”. For this issue to be addressed, a new citywide ordinance would need to
be adopted and goes beyond the scope of this update. If there are other examples of
development blocking a property’s solar access, property owners are encouraged to
contact OSE.
37 of 39
Reduction of Permit Fees and Requirements for Additions and Remodels
Comments from the technical working group and interested parties at the community
open houses were provided in regards to the high cost of permit fees and other
requirements for residential additions and remodels. Although this issue is not specific
to just the R1 zone district and is not necessarily relevant to development standards, the
Planning Commission recommended that this be an issue for potential future Council
consideration as it is evident that other factors such as this are related to the
development and retention of homes.
Environmental Analysis
The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources
Code Section 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State
Implementation Guidelines (common sense exemption). Based on 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 to the Zoning Ordinance are limited to development standards for the
City’s R1 District, such as maximum height, parcel coverage, upper story stepbacks,
and upper-story outdoor open space. The current development standards for the City’s
R1 District were analyzed in a Negative Declaration (SCH #2013121053) adopted in
2015 in conjunction with the City’s Zoning Ordinance Update. The proposed
amendments do not allow for additional density, height, massing or floor area, and
would not otherwise result in new or additional impacts than existing regulations. The
amendments include revisions that are administrative in nature and are intended to
guide the development of single-unit residential parcels consistent with the General
Plan. The modifications do not affect policy decisions made with the City Council’s
adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, and no adverse physical impacts on the environment
would occur as a result of these changes. Therefore, no further environmental review
under CEQA is required.
Text Amendment Findings
38 of 39
1. The proposed amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance are consistent
with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plans in that the proposed
revised development standards for the R1 District will preserve and protect the
existing character of the City’s different residential single-unit neighborhoods and
do not substantively affect policy decisions made with the City Council’s adoption
of the General Plan or any applicable Specific Plans.
2. The proposed amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance are consistent
with the purpose of the Zoning 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 proposed revised development standards will ensure that
adequate light, air, and open space is provided for each dwelling; ensure that the
scale and design of new development and alterations to existing structures are
consistent with the scale, mass, and character of the City’s existing residential
single-unit neighborhoods; and otherwise maintain the existing policies,
standards and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance that promote the public
health, safety and welfare.
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 Modifications (Red/Green/Bluelines)
B. February 13, 2018 Council Staff Report (web link)
39 of 39
C. April 10, 2018 Council Staff Report (web link)
D. June 19, 2019 Planning Commission Staff Report (web link)
E. August 7, 2019 Planning Commission Staff Report (web link)
F. PCD - Ordinance - R-1 Development Standards - 10.22.2019
G. Written Comments
H. PowerPoint Presentation
1
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
In the following proposed modifications (Attachment A), the redline modifications represent the
initially proposed changes to the R1-related development standards based on the public input
and initial Planning Commission direction. The greenline modifications represent additional
changes recommended by the Planning Commission on August 7, 2019. The blueline
modifications represent additional non-substantive clarifications and reorganizations proposed
by staff subsequent to the Planning Commission’s recommendation. The totality of these
proposed modifications is also presented in the proposed ordinance (Attachment F).
2
Chapter 9.04
RULES FOR MEASUREMENT
9.04.100 Determining Residential Parcel Coverage
Parcel coverage is the ratio of the total footprint area of all buildings and all structures on a parcel to the
parcel area, typically expressed as a percentage. Areas directly below projections as identified in Section
9.21.110 that are not within minimum setback areas shall be considered part of the footprint area of a story
for purposes of calculating parcel coverage for that story. Areas directly below a fully-enclosed second-
story cantilever shall be considered part of the ground floor footprint area for purposes of calculating ground
floor parcel coverage. Areas in any single-story portion of the building that exceed the height of the second
story shall be considered part of the second-story footprint area for purposes of calculating second-story
parcel coverage. The footprints of all principal and accessory structures, including garages, carports, and
roofed porches, shall be summed in order to calculate parcel coverage. The following buildings and
structures shall be included in the calculation unless otherwise expressly excluded: Areas covered by or
directly below the following shall be excluded from the footprint area for purposes of determining parcel
coverage:
A. The area of a parcel directly covered by the footprint of all buildings or structures on the parcel;
B. The area of a parcel directly below any upper portion of a building or structure that is cantilevered
beyond the edge of the first level of a building or structure except for permitted projections as
specified in Section 9.21.110; and
C. The area of a parcel directly below those portions of any balcony, stairway, porch, platform, or deck
that is enclosed on at least three sides.
A. Areas of a parcel directly covered by the footprint of each story of all principal and accessory
buildings.
1. Excluded from Parcel Coverage. Parcel coverage does not include:
a. Areas covered or below permitted projections into minimum setback areas.
b. Areas below eaves, awnings, canopies, sun shades, sills, cornices, belt courses, and other
similar solid architectural features not within minimum setback areas projecting up to the
same distances as permitted in Section 9.21.110.
c. For principal buildings, first-story roofed front porches open on at least the front and one
side elevation not within minimum setback areas.
d. Greenhouse windows, bay windows, or similar architectural features not within minimum
setback areas projecting up to the same dimensions as permitted in Section 9.21.110.
e. Notwithstanding subsection (c) above, upper-story stepback areas open to the sky or
covered by a roof structure that is at least 50% open.
B. Areas of a parcel directly below a fully enclosed second-story cantilever.
1. Excluded from Parcel Coverage. Parcel coverage does not include:
a. Within the R1 district, areas totaling no more than 3% of the parcel area directly below a
fully enclosed second-story cantilever.
C. Areas in any single-story portion of the building that exceeds the height of the second-story shall
count towards second-story parcel coverage.
D. Areas of a parcel directly covered by the footprint of any solid roofed accessory structure.
1. Excluded from Parcel Coverage. Parcel coverage does not include:
a. Accessory structures open to the sky or covered by a roof structure that is at least 50%
open.
E. Outdoor spaces on each story directly covered by a solid roof or the floor of an upper-story outdoor
space.
1. Excluded from Parcel Coverage. Parcel coverage does not include:
3
a. First-story outdoor areas open on at least two sides that are covered or below a permitted
upper-story outdoor space.
b. Projecting upper-story outdoor space not within minimum setback areas open on at least
two contiguous sides and open to the sky or covered by a roof structure that is at least 50%
open.
A. Permitted projections into minimum setback areas pursuant to Section 9.21.110;
B. Eaves, awnings, canopies, sun shades, sills, cornices, belt courses, or other similar solid architectural
features not within minimum setback areas project up to the same distances as permitted pursuant to
Section 9.21.110;
C. Greenhouse windows, bay windows, or similar architectural features not within minimum setback
areas projecting to the same dimensions as permitted pursuant to Section 9.21.110;
D. First-story roofed front porches of principal buildings that are open on at least the front and one side
elevation not within minimum setback areas;
E. Upper-story stepback areas that are open to the sky or covered by a roof structure that is at least 50%
open to the sky;
F. First-story outdoor areas open on at least two sides that are covered or below a permitted upper-story
outdoor space;
G. Projecting upper-story outdoor space not within minimum setback areas open on at least two
contiguous sides and open to the sky or covered by a roof structure that is at least 50% open to the
sky;
H. Within the R1 District, accessory dwelling units as defined in Section 9.31.300;
I. Within the R1 District, areas totaling no more than 3% of the parcel area directly below a fully
enclosed second-story cantilever; and
J. Within the R1 District, accessory structures that are open to the sky or covered by a roof structure
that is at least 50% open to the sky.
4
Chapter 9.07
SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
9.07.030 Development Standards
Table 9.07.030 prescribes the development standards for the Single Unit Residential Districts. Additional
regulations are denoted with Section numbers in the right-hand column or with individual letters in
parentheses. Section numbers refer to other Sections of this Article, while individual letters in parentheses
refer to Subsections that directly follow the table.
Within the R1 District, special standards apply to a number of specific geographic areas. These areas are
delineated as follows:
North of Montana. The area bounded by Montana Avenue, the northern City limits, 26th Street, and
Ocean Avenue.
Sunset Park. The area bounded by Lincoln Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and the City limits to the east
and south.
North of Wilshire. The area bounded by Montana Avenue, 21st Court, Wilshire Boulevard, and the
City limits to the east.
Expo/Pico. The area bounded by Stewart Avenue, Exposition Boulevard, Centinela Avenue, and Pico
Boulevard.
The R1 District requirements are listed in three columns. The first column, “General Standard” (GS) lists
the regulations that apply throughout the R1 District unless otherwise specified. The “North of Montana,”
“Sunset Park/North of Wilshire,” and “Expo/Pico” columns identify the special standards that apply to
development in those areas. Where necessary to provide additional detail, the second, third, fourth, and fifth
columns also include a reference to Subsections that follow the table. The sixth column and Additional
Standards at the end of the table list and cross-reference additional development requirements applicable to
the R1 District.
5
Table 9.07.030: Development Standards—R1 Single-Unit Residential Districts
Standard General Standard North of
Montana
Sunset
Park/North of
Wilshire
Expo/Pico Additional
Standards
Parcel and Density Standards
Minimum Parcel Area
(sq. ft.) 5,000 GS GS GS
Maximum Parcel Area
(sq. ft.) See 9.21.030(B) GS GS GS
Minimum Parcel Width
(ft.) 50
50 ft.; 100 ft. in
specific subarea.
See (A)
GS GS
Minimum Parcel Depth (ft.) 100
100 ft.; 175 ft. in
specific subarea.
See (A)
GS GS
Maximum Residential
Density
1 unit per parcel
plus 1 accessory
dwelling unit
subject to Section
9.31.300. A
duplex may be
permitted with
MUP as provided
in Table 9.07.020
GS GS GS
Maximum Parcel Coverage
(% of Parcel Area)
35%; 50% for
one-story structure
not exceeding 18
ft. in height
See (B) See (B) See (B)
Building Form and Location
Maximum Number of
Stories 2 GS GS GS
Maximum Building Height (ft.)
Parcels up to 20,000
sq. ft. in area 28 32. See (C) GS GS
Parcel greater than
20,000 sq. ft. in area
and with a front parcel
line at least 200 ft. in
length
28 ft. for flat roof;
35 ft. for pitched
roof
GS GS GS
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Section 9.21.110,
Projections into
Required Setbacks
Front Per Official Districting Map or 20 ft. if not specified
Each Interior Side-
Basic Requirement –
Structures 18 ft. in
height or less
Greater of 10% of
parcel width or 3.5
ft. but no more
than 15 ft.
required
GS GS
GS (for all
structures up to
the maximum
height limitation
in Expo/Pico)
6
Table 9.07.030: Development Standards—R1 Single-Unit Residential Districts
Standard General Standard North of
Montana
Sunset
Park/North of
Wilshire
Expo/Pico Additional
Standards
Aggregate of Both
Interior Sides –
Structures over 18 ft. in
height
30% of parcel
width, but no more
than 45 ft.
required and at
least 10% of the
parcel width, or a
minimum of 3.5
ft., whichever is
greater. See (D)
GS GS NA
Rear 25 GS GS GS
Garage Setbacks See Section 9.28.070(A)(1)
Additional Minimum Stepbacks for Upper Stories
Front—Any portion of
front elevation above
14 ft. in height and
exceeding 75% of
maximum buildable
front elevation*
Average amount
equal to 4% of
parcel depth but
no more than 10
ft. required
Average amount
equal to 8% of
parcel depth but
no more than 12
ft. required
GS GS
Rear—Any portion of
rear elevation above 14
ft. in height and
exceeding 75% of
maximum buildable
rear elevation*
Average amount
equal to 4% of
parcel depth but
no more than 10
ft. required
30% of parcel
depth but no
more than 40 ft.
required
GS GS
Sides—Portions of
building above 14 ft. in
height and exceeding
50% of maximum
buildable side
elevation*
1 ft. for every 2 ft.
4 in. of height
above 14 ft. and
up to 21 ft.
(measured from
minimum required
side setback line)
GS GS GS
Sides—All portions of
buildings exceeding 21
ft. in height
See (E) (measured
from minimum
required side
setback line)
See (E)
(measured from
minimum
required side
setback line)
GS GS
Roof Decks
Additional 3 ft.
from normally
required setback
12 ft. from any
interior property
line. See (F)
GS GS
Limitations on Upper-Story
Balconies and Roof Decks NA
Aggregate area
may not exceed
400 sq. ft. Must
be set back 12 ft.
from interior
property lines.
See (F)
NA NA
Openness and Use of Setbacks
Maximum Front Setback
Paving (% of required front
setback area)
7
Table 9.07.030: Development Standards—R1 Single-Unit Residential Districts
Standard General Standard North of
Montana
Sunset
Park/North of
Wilshire
Expo/Pico Additional
Standards
Parcels 25 ft. or more
in width 50% 40% GS GS
Parcels less than 25 ft.
in width 60% GS GS GS
Special Standards -
Building Projections into
Required Setbacks
See (G) See (G) See (G) See (G)
Section 9.21.110,
Projections into
Required Setbacks
Excavation for Lightwells,
Stairwells, and Access to
Subterranean Garages and
Basements
See (H) See (H) See (H) See (H)
Vehicle Accommodation
Parking See Sections 9.28.070, Location of Parking and Section 9.28.120, Parking
Design and Development Standards
Section
9.28.070(A)(1),
Above Ground
Parking—
Residential Districts
Required in
enclosed garage
Driveways On parcels less than 100 ft. in width, no more than one driveway
permitted
Section 9.28.120,
Parking Design and
Development
Standards
Architectural Review
Architectural Review See Section 9.07.030(I)
Additional Standards
Accessory Structures Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings and Structures
Exceptions to Height
Limits Section 9.21.060, Height Exceptions
Fences and Walls Section 9.21.050, Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Home Occupation Section 9.31.160, Home Occupation
Landscaping Chapter 9.26, Landscaping
Lighting Section 9.21.080, Lighting
Off-Street Parking and
Loading Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation
Projections into Required
Setbacks Section 9.21.110, Projections into Required Setbacks
Solar Energy Systems Section 9.21.150, Solar Energy Systems
Refuse and Recycling
Screening and Enclosure Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards
Private Tennis Courts Section 9.31.250, Private Tennis Courts
* As used in this Chapter, the term “maximum buildable elevation” means the maximum potential width or length of the
elevation permitted by this Ordinance, which includes the applicable parcel width or length minus the required minimum
setback.
A. Parcel Width and Depth—Sub-area of North of Montana. For parcel bounded by the centerlines
of First Court Alley, Seventh Street, Montana Place North Alley, and Adelaide Drive, the minimum
parcel width is 100 feet and the minimum parcel depth is 175 feet.
8
B. Maximum Parcel Coverage—Specific Areas.
1. North of Montana.
a. For parcels with a ground floor parcel coverage of no more than 35 percent, the maximum
second floor parcel coverage, including the second floor of all accessory structures, shall
not exceed 26 percent of the parcel area. Second floor parcel coverage may be increased
up to a maximum of 30 percent of the parcel area if the ground floor square footage is
reduced by an equivalent amount. Conversely, the ground floor parcel coverage may be
increased to a maximum of 40 percent if an equivalent amount is reduced on the second
floor. Parcels with only one-story structures not exceeding 18 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 18 feet in height.
b. The area of any patio, balcony, roof deck or terrace open on less than 2 sides shall count
towards parcel coverage and shall count for second floor parcel coverage if the floor line is
above 14 feet in height.
2. Sunset Park/North of Wilshire.
a. For parcels with a ground floor parcel coverage of no more than 35 percent, the maximum
second floor parcel coverage, including the second floor of all accessory structures, shall
not exceed 26 percent of the parcel area. Second floor parcel coverage may be increased
up to a maximum of 30 percent of the parcel area if the ground floor square footage is
reduced by an equivalent amount. Conversely, the ground floor parcel coverage may be
increased to a maximum of 40 percent if an equivalent amount is reduced on the second
floor. Parcels with only one-story structures not exceeding 18 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 18 feet in height.
3. Expo/Pico.
a. The maximum parcel coverage shall be 40 percent, except that parcel between 3,001 and
5,000 square feet in area may have a parcel coverage of no more than 50 percent, and parcel
of 3,000 square feet or smaller may have a parcel coverage of no more than 60 percent.
C. Maximum Building Height—Additional Standards
North of Montana. On parcels of less than 20,000 square feet, the maximum building height shall be
32 feet, except that for a parcel with greater than 35 percent parcel coverage, the maximum building
height shall be one story, not to exceed 18 feet.
D. Side Setbacks—Structures over 18 feet in Specific Areas. In the Sunset Park and North of Wilshire
areas, the aggregate side setback requirement for structures over 18 feet do not apply to the following:
1. New structures on parcels that are 45 feet or less in parcel width;
2. Additions to existing structures on parcels that are less than 50 feet in width; and
3. Any development on parcels that are less than 5,000 square feet in area.
4. If modified by the Architectural Review Board in accordance with Section 9.07.030(I)(6)(d) and
(7).
E. Required Stepbacks above Minimum Height
1. Additional Side Stepback Above 21 Feet in Height. Buildings above 21 feet in height shall not
project above a plane as defined below:
a. General Standard. No portion of a building, except permitted projections, shall intersect a
plane commencing 21 feet in height at the minimum side setback and extending at an angle
of 45 degrees from the vertical toward the interior of the site. The 21-foot height
measurement shall be taken from the same reference grade as determined for the subject
site pursuant to Section 9.04.050.
9
b. North of Montana. No portion of the building, except permitted projections, shall intersect
a plane commencing 21 feet in height at the minimum side setback and extending at an
angle of 30 degrees from the horizontal toward the interior of the parcel. The 21-foot height
measurement shall be taken from the same reference grade as determined for the subject
site pursuant to Section 9.04.050.
2. Roof Decks. Roof decks shall be set back at least 3 feet from the minimum side setback line. The
height of any railings or parapets associated with such roof decks shall not exceed the maximum
allowable building height for the structure.
3. Modifications to Required Stepbacks. Required stepbacks may be modified pursuant to Chapter
9.43, Modifications and Waivers and, if deemed necessary by the Director, review and approval
by the Architectural Review Board.
F. Standards for Upper Story Balconies and Roof Decks—North of Montana. In the North of
Montana Area, the following limitations apply:
1. Maximum Area. The aggregate square footage of second floor balconies, terraces or roof decks
shall not exceed 400 square feet.
2. Setbacks. Any individual second floor balconies, terraces, or roof decks greater than 50 square
feet in area and located in the rear two-thirds of the parcel shall be set back 12 feet from any
property line.
G. Building Projections into Required Setbacks. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9.21.110,
Projections into Required Setbacks, the following provisions apply in the R1 District:
1. Exterior stairs and required fire escapes shall not project into the required front or side setback
areas in the North of Montana area.
2. Porte cocheres not more than 20 feet long, not more than 14 feet in height including railings or
parapets, and open on three sides may project into a required side yard but may not be closer
than 3 feet to the parcel line or as required by Building Code.
3. Balconies and porches open on at least two sides with a height of no more than 14 feet, including
parapets and railings, that do not exceed 50 percent of the front building width measured at the
front façade may project up to 6 feet into the required front setback. Stairs less than 3 feet above
finished grade may project an additional 4 feet into the required front setback.
H. Excavation in Required Setbacks. In addition to the provisions of Section 9.21.110, Projections
into Required Setbacks, the following limitations apply to development in the R1 District.
1. Basements and Subterranean Garages. No basement or subterranean garage shall extend into
any required yard setback area, except for any basement or garage located beneath an accessory
building which is otherwise permitted within a yard area, if such basement, semi-subterranean
or subterranean garage is located at least 5 feet from any property line.
2. Lightwells and Stairwells.
a. General Standard. Up to a total of 50 square feet of area in the side and rear setbacks may
be utilized for lightwells or stairways to below-grade areas of the main building and any
accessory buildings.
b. North of Montana. Side and rear setbacks may be utilized for lightwells or stairways to
below-grade areas of the main building and any accessory building provided such
excavated area is set back a minimum of 10 percent of the parcel width from the property
line.
3. Excavation for Access to Subterranean Structures.
a. General Standard. Excavation in the front setback area for a driveway, stairway, doorway,
lightwell, window, or other such element to a subterranean or semi-subterranean garage or
basement shall be no deeper than 3 feet below existing grade. The Architectural Review
Board may approve a modification to allow excavations to extend into the front setback for
parcels with an elevation rise of 5 feet from the front property line to a point 50 feet towards
the interior of the site if it finds that topographic conditions necessitate that such excavation
be permitted.
10
b. North of Montana. In the North of Montana Area, no excavation for a driveway, stairway,
doorway, lightwell, window, or other such element to a subterranean or semi-subterranean
garage or basement shall be permitted in the front setback area. This prohibition shall not
be modified by the Architectural Review Board or by the procedures of Chapter 9.43,
Modifications and Waivers.
I. Architectural Review. No building or structure in the R1 Single-Unit District shall be subject to
architectural review pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter except:
1. Properties installing roof or building-mounted parabolic antennae (only with respect to the
antennae and screening);
2. Duplexes;
3. Any structure above 14 feet in height that does not conform to the required yard stepbacks for
structures above 14 feet in height;
4. Any structure that does not conform to the limitations on access to subterranean garages and
basements;
5. Any development in the North of Montana area with regard to the following conditions only:
a. Any development with an aggregate square footage of second floor balconies, terraces or
roof decks which exceeds 400 square feet.
b. Any structure with garage doors facing the public street within the front one-half of the
parcel which are not set back from the building façade a minimum of 5 feet and/or are more
than 16 feet in width.
c. Any structure with balconies or porches open on at least 2 sides with a maximum height of
14 feet including parapets and railings, which project into the required front yard and which
exceed 50 percent of the front building width measured at the front façade.
d. Any structure with side yard setbacks that do not conform with Section 9.07.030 but which
has minimum setbacks for each side yard equal to 10 percent of the parcel width.
6. Any development in the North of Wilshire and Sunset Park areas with regard to the following
conditions only:
a. Any structure associated with a new residential building, substantial remodel, or a 50
percent or greater square foot addition to an existing home located on a parcel with a grade
differential of 12.5 feet or more between the front and rear parcel lines. The Architectural
Review Board may approve projects pursuant to this subdivision (a) of subsection (6) if the
following finding of fact is made: the size, mass, and placement of the proposed structure
is compatible with improvements in the surrounding neighborhood. No other findings of
fact are required.
b. Any addition of 500 square feet or less, which is regarded as a third story and therefore not
otherwise permitted for an existing residential structure, located on a parcel with a grade
differential of 12.5 feet or more between the front and rear parcel lines, may be approved
if the following findings of fact are made:
i. The street frontage and overall massing are compatible with the existing scale and
neighborhood context;
ii. The addition does not enlarge the first floor of the existing residence such that a
nonconforming condition is expanded; and
iii. The properties in the immediate neighborhood will not be substantially impacted.
c. Any structure with garage doors facing the public street within the front one-half of the
parcel which are not set back a minimum of 5 feet from the front setback line and/or are
more than 16 feet in width.
d. Any structure on a parcel that is 50 feet or more in width that does not comply with Section
9.07.030(D).
e. Any structure with balconies or porches open on at least 2 sides with a maximum height of
14 feet including parapets and railings, which project into the required front yard and which
exceed 50 percent of the front building width measured at the front façade.
11
7. The Architectural Review Board may approve the design modifications set forth in Section
9.07.030(I)(5) provided all the following findings of fact are made and may approve the design
modifications set forth in Section 9.07.030(I)(6)(c) through (6)(e) provided that all of the
following findings of fact, except subdivision (e) of this subsection (7), are made:
a. There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property
involved, including size, shape topography, surroundings, or location of the existing
improvements or mature landscaping on the site.
b. The granting of the design modification will not be detrimental nor injurious to the property
or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located.
c. The granting of the design modification will not impair the integrity and character of this
R1 neighborhood, nor impact the light, air, open space, and privacy of adjacent properties.
d. In the case of additions to buildings in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, the design
modification is compatible with the building’s historic architectural character, does not
result in the removal of historic building features, and the addition is consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation.
e. The design modifications also comply with the criteria established in Section 9.55.140.
Any applicant for a development subject to architectural review under these provisions
shall provide certification of notice to all owners and commercial and residential tenants of
property within a radius of 300 feet from the exterior boundaries of the property involved
in the application, not less than 10 days in advance of Architectural Review Board
consideration of the matter, which notice and certification thereof shall be in a form
satisfactory to the Director.
8. Any existing structure that would not comply with the minimum side yard setback of 10 percent
of the parcel width required by Section 9.07.030 due to the combination of 2 contiguous parcels
into a single building site. The Architectural Review Board may approve a modification to the
minimum side yard setback provided the following findings of fact are made:
a. Only one of the side yard setbacks for the existing structure would become nonconforming
due to the combination of contiguous parcels.
b. This nonconforming side yard setback would not physically change.
c. The aggregate setback on the combined lots shall be a minimum of 30 percent of the total
combined lot width.
d. The combined lot width shall not exceed 120 feet.
e. The granting of the design modification will not be detrimental nor injurious to the property
or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located.
9. In the event the property owner seeks to re-divide a parcel created through the combination of
contiguous lots after the Architectural Review Board has acted pursuant to subsection (8) of this
Section, the Architectural Review Board may approve such a re-division provided the following
finding of fact is made:
a. No construction has taken place since the original combination of parcels.
12
Table 9.07.030 prescribes the development standards for the Single-Unit Residential (R1) District.
Additional regulations, including incentives for the retention of existing homes, are denoted with Section
numbers throughout the table. , while sSpecific R1 District design review criteria is located directly
following the table.
Table 9.07.030: Development Standards—Single-Unit Residential District
Standard R1 Other StandardsAdditional Regulations
Parcel and Density Standards
Minimum Parcel Area
(sq. ft.) 5,000
Maximum Parcel Area
(sq. ft.) See Section 9.21.030(B)
Minimum Parcel Width
(ft.) 50 For parcels bounded by the centerlines of
First Court Alley, Seventh Street, Montana
Place North Alley, and Adelaide Drive, the
minimum parcel width is 100 ft. and the
minimum parcel depth is 175 ft. Minimum Parcel Depth (ft.) 100
Maximum Residential
Density
1 unit per parcel plus 1 Accessory Dwelling
Unit subject to Section 9.31.300
A duplex may be permitted with an MUP as
provided in Table 9.07.020.
Maximum Parcel Coverage (% of Parcel Area)
One-story structure
less than 18 ft. in
height
50
For parcels less than 5,000 sq. ft., a
minimummaximum parcel coverage
equaling 2,500 sq. ft. shall be permitted.
Existing one-story
structure less than 18
ft. in height with one-
story additions less
than 18 ft. in height
55
For parcels less than 5,000 sq. ft., a
maximum parcel coverage equaling 2,750
sq. ft. shall be permitted.
One-story structure 18
ft. or more in height 45% For parcels less than 5,000 sq. ft., a
maximum parcel coverage equaling 2,250
sq. ft. shall be permitted.
Two-story structure or
one-story structure 18
ft. or more in height
Parcel coverage shall be the sum of ground
floor parcel coverage and second story parcel
coverage and shall be no more than
5045% aggregate
with no more than 25% on the second story
For parcels less than 5,000 sq. ft., a
minimummaximum parcel coverage
equaling 2,5002,250 sq. ft. shall be
permitted with no more than half the1,125
sq. ft. allowable square footage on the
second story.
Accessory Dwelling
Unit Exempt from parcel coverage in R1 district See Section 9.31.300
Building Form and Location
Maximum Number of
Stories 2
Maximum Building Height (ft.)
Parcels up to 20,000
sq. ft. in area
28 ft.
with no wall height exceedingabove 23 ft.
Parcels greater than
20,000 sq. ft. in area
and with a front parcel
line at least 200 ft.
in length
• 28 ft. for flat roof
• 32 ft. for pitched roof
Projections into
Height Limits See Section 9.21.060, Height Projections
13
Table 9.07.030: Development Standards—Single-Unit Residential District
Standard R1 Other StandardsAdditional Regulations
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Front Per Official Districting Map or 20 ft. if not
specified
Side - One-story
structure less than 18 ft.
in height
10% of parcel width or 3.5 ft., whichever is
greater, but no more than 15 ft. required
Side - Aggregate of
both sides for a two-
story structure or one-
story structure 18 ft. or
more in height
30% of parcel width:, but no
• No more than 45 ft. required, and each
• Each side shall be at least 10% of the
parcel width or 3.5 ft., whichever is
greater
For structures over 18 ft., the aggregate side
setback requirement does not apply to the
following:
• New structures on parcels that are 45
ft. or less in parcel width
• Additions to existing structures on
parcels that are less than 50 ft. in
width
• Any development on parcels that are
less than 5,000 sq. ft. in area
Rear 15 ft. from rear parcel line
Additional Minimum Stepbacks for Upper Stories
Front Upper-Story
Stepback
Minimum Area Required: Average amount
equal toThe sum of all stepback areas shall be
at least 1% of total parcel area. and comply
with the following:
• SEach stepback areas shall behave a
minimum depth of 3% of total parcel
depth and shall be measured from the
required front setback.
• Stepback areas greater in depth
thanThe depths ofAny stepback areas
exceeding 6% of total parcel depth
from the required front setback shall
not be included in the calculatingons
for compliance with this standard.
• AreasAny stepback area used to
comply with thea side upper-story
stepback requirements shall not be
included in the calculatingons for
compliance with this standard.
• This standard shall apply to the total
front building elevation
14
Table 9.07.030: Development Standards—Single-Unit Residential District
Standard R1 Other StandardsAdditional Regulations
Side Upper-Story
Stepbacks
Minimum Area Required: Average amount
equal toThe sum of all stepback areas shall be
at least 1% of total parcel area. and comply
with the following:
• SEach stepback areas shall behave a
minimum depth of 20% of total parcel
width and shall be measured from the
side parcel line.
• Stepback areas greater in depth
thanThe depths ofAny stepback areas
with a depth exceeding 25% of total
parcel width from the side parcel line
shall not be included in the
calculatingons for compliance with this
standard.
• AreasAny stepback area used to
comply with the front upper-story
stepback requirement shall not be
included in the calculatingons for
compliance with this standard.
• This standard shall apply to each total
side building elevation.
Sides—All portions of
buildings exceeding
23 ft. in height
• No portion of a building, except other than
a permitted projections, shall intersect a
plane commencing at 23 ft. in height at the
minimum side setback that extends at an
angle of 45-degrees from the vertical
toward the interior of the site.
• The 23 ft. height measurement shall be
taken from the same reference grade as
determined for the subject site pursuant to
Section 9.04.050.
Upper-Story Outdoor Space
Maximum Size of
Individual Balcony,
Terrace, Deck, First-
Story Roof Deck, or
Similar Outdoor Space
3% of parcel area or 300 sq. ft.,
whichever is less
Individual balconies, terraces, decks, first-
story roof decks, or similar outdoor spaces
larger than 100 sq. ft. located in the rear half
of the parcel shall be set back a minimum
distance of 20% of the parcel width from the
side parcel lines.
Maximum Size of Roof
Deck above
Second Story
3% of parcel area or 300 sq. ft.,
whichever is less
Maximum of 1 per parcel with a 57 ft.
minimum setback from edges of building
Openness and Use of Setbacks
Maximum Front Setback Paving (% of required front setback area)
Parcels 25 ft. or more
in width 50%
Parcels less than 25 ft.
in width 60%
15
Table 9.07.030: Development Standards—Single-Unit Residential District
Standard R1 Other StandardsAdditional Regulations
Building Projections into
Setbacks See Section 9.21.110, Projections into Required Setbacks
Excavation for Lightwells, Stairwells, and Access to Subterranean Garages and Basements
Basements and
Subterranean Garages
No basement or subterranean garage shall
extend into any setback area, except for any
basement or garage located beneath an
accessory building which is otherwise
permitted within a setback area, if such
basement, semi-subterranean, or subterranean
garage is located at least 5 ft. from any parcel
line.
Lightwells and
Stairwells
• Side and rear setbacks may be utilized for
lightwells or stairways to below-grade
areas.
• Excavated areas shall be set back a
minimum of 10% of the parcel width from
any parcel line measured to the interior
wall surface of these excavated areas.
• For parcels where the aggregate side
setback is not required, up to a total of 50
sq. ft. within the side and rear setbacks
may be utilized for lightwells or
stairways to below-grade areas.
• Retaining walls shall not be included in
calculations for these excavated areas.
Excavation for Access
Excavation in the front setback area for a
driveway, stairway, doorway, or other such
element for access purposes shall be no deeper
than 3 ft. below existing grade.
Vehicle Accommodation
Parking • See Sections 9.28.070, Location of Parking
• Section 9.28.120, Parking Design and Development Standards
Driveways • On parcels less than 100 ft. in width, no more than one driveway permitted
• See Section 9.28.120, Parking Design and Development Standards
Incentives for Retention of Existing Homes
Building Additions Section 9.21.170, Building Additions Extending into Minimum Side Setbacks
Modifications to
Development Standards Chapter 9.43 Modification and Waivers
Architectural Review
Architectural Review See Section 9.07.030(A)
Additional Standards
Accessory Buildings and
Structures Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings and Structures
Accessory Dwelling Units Section 9.31.300, Accessory Dwelling Units
Basements Section 9.52.020.0230, Basement Definition
Fences, Walls, and Hedges Section 9.21.050, Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Home Occupation Section 9.31.160, Home Occupation
Landscaping Chapter 9.26, Landscaping
Lighting Section 9.21.080, Lighting
Off-Street Parking Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation
Private Tennis Courts Section 9.31.250, Private Tennis Courts
Projections from Buildings
into Minimum Setbacks Section 9.21.110, Projections from Buildings into Minimum Setbacks
16
Table 9.07.030: Development Standards—Single-Unit Residential District
Standard R1 Other StandardsAdditional Regulations
Projections into Height
Limits Section 9.21.060, Height Projections
Refuse and Recycling
Screening and Enclosure Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards
Solar Energy Systems Section 9.21.150, Solar Energy Systems
A. Architectural Review. No building or structure in the R1 Single-Unit District shall be subject to
architectural review pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter except:
1. Duplexes pursuant to the criteria established in Section 9.55.140.
2. Any development associated with a new residential building or a 50 percent or greater square foot
addition to an existing dwelling unit located on a parcel with a grade differential of 12.5 feet or
more between the front and rear parcel lines. The Architectural Review Board may approve projects
provided that the following findings of fact are made:
a. The size, mass, and placement of the proposed structure is compatible with improvements in
the surrounding neighborhood.
3. Any addition of 500 square feet or less, which is regarded as a third story and therefore not
otherwise permitted for an existing residential structure, located on a parcel with a grade differential
of 12.5 or more between the front and rear parcel lines. The Architectural Review Board may
approve projects provided that the following findings of fact are made:
a. The street frontage and overall massing are compatible with the existing scale and
neighborhood context;
b. The addition does not enlarge the first-story of the existing residence such that a nonconforming
condition is expanded; and
c. The properties in the immediate neighborhood will not be substantially impacted.
4. Any development with regard to the following conditions:
a. Any new structure on a parcel that is more than 45 feet in width or an addition to an existing
structure on a parcel 50 feet or more that does not comply with the minimum aggregate side
setback, but which is set back a minimum of 10% of parcel with on each side.
b. Any two-story structure that does not conform to the additional minimum stepbacks for upper
stories
c. Any structure that does not conform to the limitations on access to subterranean garages and
basements.
d. Any development with an individual upper-story outdoor space greater than the permitted
area for the parcel.
e. Any development with an individual upper-story outdoor space greater than 100 square feet
in the rear half of the parcel that is not set back a minimum distance of 20% of the parcel
width from the side parcel lines.
f. Any structure with garage doors facing the public street within the front half of the parcel
which are not set back from the primary façade facing a street a minimum of 5 feet and/or
are more than 16 feet in width.
g. Any structure with a first-story porch or second-story balcony open on at least 3 sides with a
height of no more than 14 feet, including parapets and railings, which project into the
minimum front setback and which exceed 50 percent of the front building width measured at
the front façade.
5. Design modifications set forth in subsection (4) above may be approved by the Architectural
Review Board provided that the following findings of fact are made:
17
a. There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property
involved, including size, shape, topography, surroundings, or location of the existing
improvements or mature landscaping on the site;
b. The granting of the design modification will not be detrimental nor injurious to the property or
improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located;
c. The granting of the design modification will not impair the integrity and character of
surrounding context, nor impact the light, air, open space, and privacy of adjacent properties;
d. In the case of additions to buildings on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory an additional
finding that the modification is compatible with the building’s historic architectural character,
does not result in the removal of historic building features, and the addition is consistent with
the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation shall be made; and
e. The design modifications also comply with the criteria established in Section 9.55.140.
A. Architectural Review.
1. Proposed development in the R1 Single-Unit District shall not be subject to architectural
review if it conforms to the development standards set forth above except as follows:
a. The Architectural Review Board shall review any proposed duplex pursuant to
Section 9.55.140.
b. The Architectural Review Board shall review proposed development that is located
on a parcel with a grade diffrential of 12.5 feet or more between the front and rear
parcel lines, and associated with the following:
i. a new residential building; or
ii. a 50 percent or greater square foot addition to an existing dwelling unit.
A proposed structure may be approved if its size, mass, and placement are found to be
compatible with improvements in the immediate neighborhood.
2. The Architectural Review Board shall review and may approve proposed development that
does not conform to the development standards set forth above as follows:
a. The Architectural Review Board shall review any proposed addition of 500 square
feet or less that is regarded as a third story that is located on a parcel with a grade
differential of 12.5 or more between the front and rear parcel lines. The
Architectural Review Board may approve such an addition if the following
findings of fact are made
i. the street frontage and overall massing are compatible with the existing
scale and neighborhood context;
ii. the addition does not enlarge the first-story of the existing residence such
that a nonconforming condition is expanded; and
iii. the properties in the immediate neighborhood will not be substantially
impacted.
b. The Architectural Review Board shall review the following:
i. Any proposed new structure on a parcel that is more than 45 feet in width
that does not comply with the minimum aggregate side setback but that is
set back a minimum of 10% of parcel width on each side;
ii. Any proposed addition to an existing structure on a parcel 50 feet or more
that does not comply with the minimum aggregate side setback but that is
set back a minimum of 10% of parcel width on each side;
iii. Any proposed two-story structure that does not conform to the standard set
forth above for additional minimum stepbacks for upper stories;
iv. Any proposed structure that does not conform to the standards for
subterranean garages and basements set forth in Table 9.07.030, Chapter
9.28 (Parking), and Section 9.52.020.230 of this Code;
18
v. Any proposed individual upper story balcony, terrace, deck, first-story roof
deck, or similar outdoor space that does not conform to the standard set
forth above;
vi. Any proposed structure with garage doors that face the public street, are
located within the front half of the parcel, and (i) are not set back from the
primary façade facing the public street a minimum of 5 feet or (ii) are more
than 16 feet in width; or
vii. Any proposed structure that includes a first-story porch or second-story
balcony that (a) is open on at least three sides, (b) has a height of no more
than 14 feet, including parapets and railings, (c) projects into the minimum
front setback and (d) exceeds 50 percent of the front building width as
measured at the front façade.
The Architectural Review Board may approve a design modification set forth in
this subsection if the following findings of fact are made:
i. There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable
to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, surroundings,
or location of the existing improvements or mature landscaping on the site;
ii. Granting the design modification will not be detrimental or injurious to the
property or to improvements in the general vicinity and district in which
the property is located;
iii. Granting the design modification will not impair the integrity and character
of surrounding context, or impact the light, air, open space, or privacy of
adjacent properties;
iv. If the design modification includes a modification or addition to a building
on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, the modification or addition is
compatible with the building’s historic architectural character, does not
result in the removal of historic building features, and is consistent with
the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation; and
v. The design modifications comply with the criteria set forth in
Section 9.55.140.
19
Chapter 9.21
GENERAL SITE REGULATIONS
9.21.020 Accessory Buildings and Structures
Accessory buildings and structures shall conform to the same property development standards as main
buildings except as required by this Section. Accessory buildings in Residential Districts shall include,
including, but not be limited to, greenhouse and garden structures, storage sheds, workshops, garages, and
other buildings structures that are detached from the main principal building. Accessory structures in
Residential Districts shall include, but be not limited to, unenclosed carports, gazebos, cabanas, or other
similar structures; air conditioners, compressors, electric vehicle charging equipment, pool and spa filters,
or other mechanical equipment; barbecues; sinks and counters; fountains; freestanding fireplaces; firepits;
above ground swimming pools and spas; and other structures with a fixed location that are detached from
the principal building. Accessory structures greater than 14 feet in height are not permitted. Accessory
building and structures shall be erected, structurally altered, converted, enlarged, moved, and maintained,
in compliance with the following regulations:
A. Relation to Existing Structures Principal Buildings. An accessory building may only be
constructed on a parcel with a legally-permitted mainprincipal building. An accessory building
willshall be considered part of the principal building if the accessory building is located less than 6
feet from the principal building or if connected to it by fully enclosed space.
B. Dwelling Units in Accessory StructuresBuildings. An accessory building on a parcel occupied by
a single-unit detached structure may only be used as a separate dwelling unit in compliance with the
requirements of Section 9.31.300, Accessory Dwelling Units.
C. Accessory Buildings and Structures up to 14 Feet in Residential Districts. Accessory buildings
and structures not more than 14 feet or one story in height shall conform to the following standards:
1. Location.
a. Accessory buildings 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 subsections (b)
and (c) below.
b. Accessory buildings no more than 14 feet in height may be located in the rear setback but
shall be located at least 5 feet from the rear parcel line. A garage or garage portion of such
an accessory building may extend up to one interior side parcel line within the rear 35 feet
of a parcel.
c. A garage or garage portion of an accessory building may extend to the rear parcel line
abutting an alley, provided that vehicle access is not taken from the alley. Where vehicle
access is taken from an alley, garages shall be set back at least 5 feet from the rear parcel
line abutting said alley.
d. Accessory buildings may be located in a requiredthe rear setback and shall be located at
least 15 feet from the centerline of a rear alley.
e. Accessory structures shall not be located within any front or minimum side setback unless
expressly authorized below:
i. Fountains, fire pits, and similar ornamental landscape features not to exceed 42 inches
in height.
ii. Underground mechanical equipment.
iii. Electric vehicle charging equipment shall be permitted within any minimum side
setback but shall not be permitted within any minimum front setback.
2. Dimensions.
a. On a reversed corner parcel, accessory buildings shall not be located nearer to the street
side parcel line of such corner parcel than one-half 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.
20
b. Any accessory building on a through parcel shall not project into any front setback and
shall not be located in any requiredminimum side setback.
3. Sloped Parcels.
a. Where the elevation of the ground at a point 50 feet from the front parcel line of a parcel
and midway between the side parcel lines differs 12 feet or more from the curb level, a
private garage, not exceeding one story nor 11 feet in height for a flat roof and one story
nor 14 feet in height for a pitched roof, may be located within the required front setback,
provided that every portion of the garage building is at least 5 feet from the front parcel
line and does not occupy more than 50 percent of the width of the front parcel line.
b. In all OP Districts, a garage or garage entrance on a parcel with an existing grade
differential of 10 feet or more between the midpoint of the front parcel line and the midpoint
of the rear parcel line may be set back a distance equal to the average garage setback of
adjacent garage(s), but not less than 5 feet, when the interior garage width does not exceed
20 feet and the height does not exceed 11 feet for a flat roof and 14 feet for a pitched roof.
4. Facilities. Except for Accessory Dwelling Units established in compliance with Section 9.31.300
of this Ordinance, accessory buildings may not contain kitchens or full baths. An accessory
building that is not an approved Accessory Dwelling Unit may contain a sink and toilet, but may
not contain a shower or tub enclosure. A shower that is outside and unenclosed is permitted.
D. Accessory Buildings over One Story or 14 Feet in Residential Districts. Accessory buildings and
structures that exceed 14 feet or one story in height may only be erected, structurally altered,
converted, enlarged, or moved in any Residential District in conformance with shall conform to the
following regulationsstandards:
1. Maximum Floor Area. The total floor area of an accessory building that exceeds 14 feet or one
story in height shall not exceed 650 square feet including any area approved for use as a garage.
No accessory building shall have a second floor that exceeds 250 square feet in size. Accessory
Dwelling Units are exempt from this requirement pursuant to Section 9.31.300.
2. Maximum Building Height. The accessory building shall not exceed two stories or 24 feet in
height.
3. Setbacks. The accessory building shall conform to all setback requirements of the Residential
District and the following requirements:
a. A one-story garage or the garage portion of an accessory building may extend into the rear
setback and may extend to one interior side property line on the rear 35 feet of a parcel. if
the second-story has a minimum separation of 20 feet from the second-story of the principal
building.
b. The accessory building shall have the same minimum side setback requirement as the
principal building on the parcel, but in no case less than 5 feet.
c. The second story portion of an accessory building that is directly above the garage 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, and may not extend
into any required minimum side setback.
4. Exterior Features. In the North of Montana areaSingle-Unit Residential District, first-story roof
decks, landings, upper level walkways, and balconies on accessory buildings, not including
Accessory Dwelling Units, 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. Roof decks above the
second-story are prohibited.
5. Design Compatibility. The architectural design of the accessory building shall be compatible
with the design of the principal dwelling and surrounding residential development in terms of
building form, materials, colors, and exterior finishes.
6. Kitchen. The accessory building shall not contain a kitchen unless specifically permitted as an
Accessory Dwelling Unit pursuant to Section 9.31.300, Accessory Dwelling Units.
21
7. Full Bath. The accessory building may contain a sink and toilet, but shall not contain a shower
or tub enclosure unless specifically permitted as an Accessory Dwelling Unit pursuant to Section
9.31.300. A shower that is located outside and unenclosed may be permitted.
8. Renting. No accessory building shall be rented for any purpose or otherwise used as an
Accessory Dwelling Unit unless specifically pursuant to Section 9.31.300.
22
9.21.060 Height ExceptionsProjections
No structure shall project above the height limits established in this Article except as specified in this
Section.
A. Building-Mounted and Attached Structures. Table 9.21.060 establishes the maximum
permitted projection(s) above the height limit of a building for structures that are typically mounted
or attached to a building. These projections are by right, with no discretionary permit required. Table
9.21.060 also establishes limitations in the horizontal coverage of permitted projections. Some
allowances apply in all Zoning Districts while others are limited to specified Zoning Districts. In the
Single-Unit Residential (R1) district, allowed height projections into the minimum side stepback
areas above 23 feet shall be permitted. None of these projections shall permit occupiable space above
the height limit. The total aggregate coverage of projections shall not exceed 30 percent of a roof’s
area. This limitation shall not apply to solar energy systems (see Section 9.21.150).
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
5 ft. 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.
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.
23
9.21.110 Projections from Buildings into RequiredMinimum Setbacks
Table 9.21.110 sets forth the requirements for permitted projections from buildings into requiredminimum
setbacks. Development in the R1 District is subject to the additional standards of Section 9.07.030(G); in
the case of any conflict, the regulations of the base District shall supersede those of this Section. In the
Single-Unit Residential (R1) district, only expressly authorized projections into the minimum side stepback
areas above 23 feet shall be permitted. Projections shall not be permitted closer than 4 feet to any parcel
line unless otherwise expressly authorized. Projections as listed below into existing, nonconforming setback
areas shall be permitted only if the projection does not extend closer to the parcel line than would be
permitted if the setback area conformed to current standards. The types of projections and the limitations
on such projections into requiredminimum setbacks are permitted subject to Chapter 4.12, Noise; Section
9.31.180, Hazardous Visual Obstructions; and compliance with the California Building Code as follows:
TABLE 9.21.110: ALLOWED PROJECTIONS FROM BUILDINGS INTO MINIMUM SETBACKS
Projections Front Setback Street Side
Setback
Interior Side
Setback Rear Setback
Eaves, awnings, canopies, sun shades, sills, cornices, belt
courses, trellises, arbors, and other similar architectural
features (projections shall not be closer than 1.5 feet to any
property line)
(also permitted within R1 stepback areas above 23 feet)
30 in.
(no closer
than 1.5 ft. to
parcel line)
30 in.
(no closer
than 1.5 ft, to
parcel line)
1824 in.
(no closer than
1.5 ft. to parcel
line)
4 ft.
(no closer
than 1.5 ft. to
parcel line)
Flues, chimneys, water heater enclosuresrain gutters,
downspouts, and similar vertical architectural projections
not more than 5 ft. wide parallel to the side setback and
that do not exceed 20% of the façade width
All setbacks:
18 in. for structures with conforming setbacks;
12 in. for structures with nonconforming setbacks
Patios, porches, platforms, decks, and other unenclosed
areas not covered by a roof or canopy and that may be
raised above the level of the adjacent setback but do not
extend more than 3 ft. above the average natural grade
except for guard rails to the extent legally required
6 ft. 6 ft.
No limit
(can extend to
parcel line)
No limit
(can extend to
parcel line)
In the R1 District, first-story porches and second-story
balconies open on 3 sides with a height of no more than 14
ft., including parapets and railings, that do not exceed 50%
of the front building width measured at the front façade.
6 ft. Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted
In the R1 District, stairs with no roof or canopy less than 3
ft. above finished grade associated with a first-story front
porch projection
4 additional
feet Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted
Balconies, decks, porches, and similar structures that are
open, unenclosed on at least 2 sides 30 in. 30 in. Not permitted 4 ft.
In any OP district, Ssecond-floor decks, patios, or
balconies, covered or uncovered, adjacent to primary
living spaces in any OP Districts
30 in. 30 in. 30 in. 4 ft.
Unroofed access facilities, including stairs and wheelchair
ramps, with a height, including railings, of no more than 6
ft. above average natural grade
8 ft., but may extend any distance to accommodate
wheelchair ramps or similar ADA access facilities
Exterior access facilities leading to the second or higher
story of a building, including open or enclosed fire escapes
and open, unroofed fireproof outside stairways, landings,
exterior corridors, and wheelchair ramps. This projection
shall not be permitted within the R1 District.
Not permitted Not permitted
12 in. or 2 in.
per foot of
required side
setback,
whichever is
greater
4 ft.
24
TABLE 9.21.110: ALLOWED PROJECTIONS FROM BUILDINGS INTO MINIMUM SETBACKS
Projections Front Setback Street Side
Setback
Interior Side
Setback Rear Setback
Greenhouse windows and bay windows that are not greater
than 6 ft. wide parallel to the setback if all such windows
are cantilevered only and do not extend to the ground
level, provided the structure has a conforming setback
18 in. 18 in. 18 in. 18 in.
Porte cocheres not more than 20 ft. long, not more than 14
ft. in height, including required railings or parapets, and
open on at least 23 sides except for necessary structural
supports
Not permitted
in front
setback
Permitted in side and rear setback but No limit
(can extend to parcel line) unless may not be
closer than 3 feet to the parcel line or as
requiredlimited by Building Code
Mailbox canopies not more than 10 ft. long 30 in. 30 in. 30 in. 4 ft.
Air conditioners, compressors, hot tub motors, pool filters,
and other mechanical equipment Not permitted Not
permitted Not permitted
No limit
(can extend
to rear
parcel line)
Detached structures and mechanical equipment See Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings and Structures
Water heaters enclosures and tankless water heaters Not permitted
18 in. for structures with
conforming setbacks;
12 in. for structures with
nonconforming setbacks
No limit
(can extend
to parcel line)
Utility equipment including, but not limited to, gas, water,
and electrical meters
Not permitted
(unless
required by
Building and
Utility Codes)
18 in. for structures with
conforming setbacks;
12 in. for structures with
nonconforming setbacks
No limit
(can extend
to parcel
line)
Electric vehicle charging equipment Not permitted
No limit
(can extend
to parcel
line)
No limit
(can extend to
parcel line)
No limit
(can extend
to parcel
line)
Solar energy system equipment See Section 9.21.150, Solar Energy Systems
25
9.21.170 Building Additions Extending Into RequiredMinimum Side YardSetbacks
In all residential districts, an addition(s) to an existing structurebuilding that has a nonconforming side yard
setback may alsocontinue to extend into the required minimum side yard setback provided all of the
following criteria are met:
A. The addition(s) do(es) not exceed one-story and fourteen feet in height.
B. The addition(s) continue(s) the façade setback line of the existing structure.
B. The addition(s) do(es) not extend closer to the side property line than the existing structure.
CBC. The addition(s) do(es) not extend closer than four feet to the side property line.
DCD. The addition(s) do(es) not exceed fifteen feet in length parallel to the side property line.
EDE. The addition(s) is (are) not limited to one side of the existing structure and does notmay extend
into both side yard setbacks.
FEF. There has been no prior addition under this Section.
26
Chapter 9.28
PARKING, LOADING, AND CIRCULATION
9.28.020 Applicability
The requirements of this Chapter apply to the following.
A. New Buildings and Land Uses. On-site parking shall be provided according to the provisions of
this Chapter at the time any building or structure is erected or any new land use is established.
B. Addition, Enlargement of Use, and Change of Use of Existing Non-Residential Buildings.
1. Except as provided in subsection (B)(2), a change of use shall provide the difference between
the required parking ratio for the proposed use and one automobile parking space per 300 square
feet.
2. Changes in use that create an increase of 3 or fewer required parking spaces, calculated in
accordance with subsection (B)(1), shall not be required to provide additional on-site automobile
parking according to the provisions of this Chapter. Bicycle parking shall be provided in
accordance with Section 9.28.140.
3. Existing parking shall be maintained and additional parking shall be required only for such
addition, enlargement, or change of use and not for the entire building or site. If the number of
existing parking spaces is greater than the requirements for such use, the number of spaces in
excess of the prescribed minimum may be counted toward meeting the parking requirements for
the addition, enlargement, or change in use.
4. A change in occupancy is not considered a change in use unless the new occupant is a different
use than the former occupant.
C. Addition, Enlargement of Use, and Change of Use of Existing Residential Buildings.
1. For any new commercial, cultural, health, industrial, or commercial entertainment and recreation
use of an existing residential building, structure including any addition and enlargement of use,
parking spaces in the number specified in Section 9.28.060, Required Off-Street Parking, shall
be provided for the entire parcel.
2. For any new residential or educational use of an existing residential building or structure such
that the new residential or educational use will require a greater number of parking spaces as
compared to the previous use, parking spaces in the number specified in Section 9.28.060,
Required Off-Street Parking, shall be provided for the new use.
D. Additions and Alterations to Residential Buildings. When an addition or alteration is proposed to
a residential building that does not currently provide parking in compliance with this Chapter, the
following regulations apply:
1. Single Unit Dwellings. Parking shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
9.28.060, Required Off-Street Parking, if 50 percent or more additional square footage is added
to the principal building at any one time, or incrementally, after September 8, 1988, provided the
aggregate addition is 500 square feet or more.
21. Multi-Unit Dwellings. Additional parking shall be required for the proposed addition or
alteration if it increases the number of bedrooms of existing units.
32. Increased Number of Dwelling Units. The creation of additional dwelling units through the
alteration of an existing building or construction of an additional structure or structures requires
the provision of on-site parking to serve the new dwelling units in compliance with the provisions
of this Chapter. This requirement does not apply when sufficient on-site parking exists to provide
the number of spaces required for the existing and new dwelling units in compliance with all
applicable requirements.
E. Construction Timing. On-site parking facilities required by this Chapter shall be constructed or
installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the uses that they serve.
27
9.28.070 Location of Parking
Required off-street parking and loading spaces shall be located on the same parcel as the use they serve,
except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. Entrances to off-street parking and loading should be located
on a non-primary façade, except as described below. Where a parcel contains more than 1 street frontage,
the parking entrance should be located on the secondary street or alley. All efforts should be made to
eliminate the impacts of parking entrances on main thoroughfares and transit-oriented streets. The
requirements of this Section shall not apply to vehicles on display by an automobile dealer in a showroom
or approved outdoor area unless otherwise specified by this Ordinance.
A. Above Ground Parking.
1. Residential Districts. Parking shall be located in the rear half of the parcel and at least 40 feet
from a street-facing property line, except as provided below:
a. Single-Unit Residential District. Required parking for single-unit dwellings shall may be
located within an enclosed garage in the front half of the parcel provided the parking is
located behind the front setback line or the primary first-story facade facing the street,
whichever is the greater distance from the front parcel line. Required parking for all other
permitted use classifications in the single-unit residential district shall not be required to be
located within an enclosed garage; however, allowable Ggarages may be located in the
front half of the parcel subject to the setback requirements of the Base District and the
following:
i. Setback from Building Façade and Front Setback Line.
(1) North of Montana. Garage doors facing a public street shall be located at least 5
feet behind the primary facadewall facing the street, and never less than the
required Base District setback.
(2) North of Wilshire/Sunset Park. Garage doors facing a public street shall be
located at least 5 feet behind the front setback line.
ii. Projection into Front Yard Setback. In the R1 Single-Unit Residential District, a one-
story garage attached to the primary structure with a maximum height of 14 feet,
including parapets and railings, a maximum length of 25 feet, and with garage doors
perpendicular to the public street, shall be allowed to project up to 6 feet into the
required front yard if no alley access exists, but may not extend closer than 20 feet to
the front property line.
b. Multi-Unit Residential Districts. Parking may be located in the front half of the parcel in
Multi-Unit Residential Districts provided that no part of a required front setback shall be
used for parking purposes.
c. Garage Openings and Doors.
i. Garage Opening Setback. Garage openings shall be located the following minimum
distances from parcel lines adjoining streets and alleys:
(1) Front-entry garage: 20 feet.
(2) Side-entry garage: 5 feet.
(3) Garage with alley access: 15 feet from centerline of alley.
(4) Narrow parcels: For garages with rear vehicular access from an alley and located
on a parcel 27 feet wide or less, the side setback adjacent to a street or another
alley may be reduced to 3 feet.
(5) A minimum 22-foot turning radius is required from the garage to the opposite
side of the street alley, drive aisle, or driveway.
ii. Garage Door Width. Except as provided in subsections (1) and (2) below, iIf a garage
faces the front or street side parcel line, the garage doors shall not be more than 18
feet wide. A door to a single space shall not be more than 9 feet wide. Not more than
1 double garage may be entered from the side street side of a corner or a reversed
corner parcel. However, within the
(1) North of Montana Single-Unit Residential District., the following shall apply:
28
(1) GgGarage doors facing the public street may not exceed 16 feet in width unless
located in the rear half of the parcel except as provided in Section 9.07.030(A).
(2) On parcels 27 feet wide or less, no more than one garage door shall be permitted
facing the public street, and the garage door shall not exceed 9 feet in width.
(2) North of Wilshire/Sunset Park. Garage doors facing the public street may not
exceed 16 feet in width unless located in the rear half of the parcel except as
provided in Section 9.07.030(I)(6).
d. Sloped Parcels. Garages may be located in the required front setback when the elevation
of the ground at a point 50 feet from the front parcel line and midway between the side
parcel lines differs 12 feet or more from the level of the curb or in all Ocean Park Districts
where there is a change in existing grade of 10 feet or more between the midpoint of the
front parcel line and the midpoint of the rear parcel line subject to the following:
i. Height shall not exceed 14 feet if a pitched roof, 11 feet for a flat roof, or 1 story;
ii. No portion of the garage may be closer than 5 feet from the front property line;
iii. The garage may not occupy more than 50 percent of the width of the front setback;
and
iv. In all Ocean Park Districts, a garage that complies with subsections (i) through (iii)
may be set back a distance equal to the average setback of garages on adjacent parcels
if the interior garage width does not exceed 20 feet.
e. Along the Pacific Coast Highway. Uncovered parking may be located in the front half of
the parcel and within the required front setback on parcel located along the Pacific Coast
Highway between the Santa Monica Pier and the north City limits.
f. Rooftop Parking. Rooftop parking is prohibited in all Residential Districts.
2. Mixed-Use and Non-Residential Districts.
a. Interior Side and Rear Setbacks. Above ground parking that does not extend above the first
floor level may be located within required interior side and rear setback provided above
ground parking is set back a minimum of 5 feet from an interior parcel line adjacent to a
Residential District.
b. Rooftop Parking.
i. Rooftop parking is prohibited in the following areas:
(1) Neighborhood Commercial Districts; and
(2) Except as authorized in Section 9.31.070(D)(6), within 50 feet of Residential
Districts.
ii. Where permitted, rooftop parking areas shall be screened at their perimeters to
prevent light spill onto adjacent properties. Non-skid or other similar surface
treatment on both floors and ramps of the rooftop shall be required to prevent tire
squeals. In order to minimize noise and air impacts, exhaust vents and other
mechanical equipment shall be located as far from residential uses as feasible
consistent with Chapter 8 of the Municipal Code.
B. Subterranean Parking Structures.
1. Required Setbacks. A subterranean parking structure may be constructed and maintained in any
required setback area except in any required unexcavated areas.
2. Openings. All openings for ingress and egress facing the front parcel line shall be situated at or
behind the front building line of the main building. There shall be no more than 1 vehicular
opening facing the front parcel line for each main building. Pedestrian access openings are
permitted.
3. Crossing Property Lines. Development located on 2 or more separate parcels may share
common subterranean parking garages or link circulation between subterranean parking facilities
only if the parcels are combined pursuant to Section 9.21.030, Development on Multiple Parcels.
C. Semi-Subterranean Parking Structures.
29
1. Front Setback. Semi-subterranean parking structures shall not be located within a required front
setback.
2. Side and Rear Setback.
a. On parcels less than 50 feet in width, a semi-subterranean parking structure may extend to
both property lines and to the rear property line.
b. On parcels having a width of 50 feet or greater, a semi-subterranean parking structure may
be constructed and maintained in any required side or rear setback area except in a required
unexcavated area.
3. Openings. All openings for ingress and egress facing the front parcel line shall be situated at or
behind the front building line of the main building. There shall be no more than 1 vehicular
opening facing the front parcel line for each main building. Pedestrian access openings are
permitted.
4. Parking Podium Height. The finished floor of the first level of the building or structure above
the parking structure shall not exceed 3 feet above the average natural, sloped average natural,
or theoretical grade of the parcel, except for openings for ingress and egress.
30
Chapter 9.31
STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC USES AND ACTIVITIES
9.31.300 Accessory Dwelling Units
Notwithstanding the Accessory Buildings and Structures standards of Section 9.21.020, Accessory
Dwelling Units shall be developed, located, and operated in accordance 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 650 square feet for parcels up to and including 6,000 square feet in
area or not to exceed 800 square feet for parcels greater than 6,000 square feet in 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 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 5 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.
31
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 primary Single-Unit
Dwelling 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 primary 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 up to 650 square feet for parcels up to and including 6,000
square feet in area or up to 800 square feet for parcels greater than 6,000 square feet in area, 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 Article.
5. Conversion on an Existing Accessory Building to an Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Notwithstanding subsection F, the conversion of an existing accessory building up to 650 square
feet for parcels up to and including 6,000 square feet in area or up to 800 square feet for parcels
greater than 6,000 square feet in 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 Article, 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 accessory structure up to 14 feet in height or within additions to
existing accessory structures up to 14 feet in height shall comply with 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.
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 650 square feet for parcels up to and including 6,000 square feet in
area or shall not exceed 800 square feet for parcels greater than 6,000 square feet in area.
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
32
height or within additions to existing accessory structures over one story or 14 feet in height shall
comply with 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. For second story portions of an Accessory Dwelling Unit constructed
above an existing garage, a setback of 5 feet from the side and rear parcel lines shall
be required.
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 650 square feet for parcels up to and including
6,000 square feet in area or shall not exceed 800 square feet for parcels greater than 6,000
square feet in area.
i. The second story of an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not exceed the floor area of the
first story.
c. Maximum Building Height. The Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not exceed two stories or
24 feet in height.
d. Exterior Features. First-story Rroof decks, landings, upper level walkways, and balconies
shall not exceed an aggregate 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 shall not be located on the
side elevation closest to a side parcel line or on the rear elevation; and shall have the same
minimum side setback requirement as the principal building on the parcel, but in no case
less than 5 feet; and shall be set back a minimum 5 feet from the rear parcel line. Roof
decks above the second-story are prohibited.
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 Single-
Unit Dwelling.
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
33
allocated to meet the parking requirement for the Accessory Dwelling Unit unless replacement
parking is provided in accord with this Article.
2. Exemptions. Notwithstanding any other parking required by this Section or Chapter 9.28 of this
Article, 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 30 days.
1
City Council Meeting: October 22, 2019 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE CITY’S ZONING ORDINANCE
RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE R1 (SINGLE-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica has expressly declared that the purpose of
the 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, mass, and character of the existing residential
neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2018, the City Council adopted Interim Zoning
Ordinance Number 2569 (CCS) (“Interim Zoning Ordinance 2569”) amending portions of
Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9.07.030 to revise development standards for
2
maximum parcel coverage, maximum building height, and additional minimum stepbacks
for upper stories in the R1 District; and
WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of Interim Zoning Ordinance 2569, numerous
neighborhood groups and individual residents expressed concerns about the size and
scale of new single-unit dwellings being constructed within the City’s R1 Districts; and
WHEREAS, while this new construction generally complied with the development
standards for the R1 District in place at the time, they often doubled and even tripled the
dwelling’s square footage; and
WHEREAS, the resultant structures were out of character with the existing built
environment; and
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2018, the City Council adopted Interim Zoning Ordinance
Number 2572 (CCS) (“Interim Zoning Ordinance 2572”) to extend the interim
development standards adopted by Interim Zoning Ordinance 2569 until November 19,
2019 to allow 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 (CCS), 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, contractors, community
3
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 test 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, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
August 7, 2019, and, after considering oral and written testimony regarding the proposed
amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance, made the following findings:
1. The proposed amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance are
consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plans in that the proposed
revised development standards for the R1 District will preserve and protect the existing
character of the City’s different residential single-unit neighborhoods and do not
substantively affect policy decisions made with the City Council’s adoption of the General
Plan or any applicable Specific Plans.
2. The proposed amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance are
consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to promote the growth of the City in
4
an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general
welfare in that the proposed revised development standards will ensure that adequate
light, air, privacy and open space is provided for each dwelling; ensure that the scale and
design of new development and alterations to existing structures are consistent with the
scale, mass and character of the City’s existing residential single-unit neighborhoods; and
otherwise maintain the existing policies, standards and regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance that promote the public health, safety and welfare
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission further made a recommendation to adopt
the proposed amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on September 24, 2019, the City Council conducted a duly noticed
hearing to consider the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, and
desires to adopt the proposed amendments to the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance as
set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Based upon the oral and written testimony presented to the City
Council at the public hearing on September 24, 2019 regarding the proposed changes to
the text of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:
1. The proposed amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance are
consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plans in that the proposed
revised development standards for the R1 District will preserve and protect the existing
character of the City’s different residential single-unit neighborhoods and do not
5
substantively affect policy decisions made with the City Council’s adoption of the General
Plan or any applicable Specific Plans.
2. The proposed amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance are
consistent with the purpose of the Zoning 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 proposed revised development standards will ensure that adequate
light, air, privacy and open space is provided for each dwelling; ensure that the scale and
design of new development and alterations to existing structures are consistent with the
scale, mas and character of the City’s existing residential single-unit neighborhoods; and
otherwise maintain the existing policies, standards and regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance that promote the public health, safety and welfare.
SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.100 is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Section 9.04.100 Determining Residential Parcel Coverage.
Parcel coverage is the ratio of the total footprint area of all structures on a parcel
to the parcel area, typically expressed as a percentage. Areas directly below projections
as identified in Section 9.21.110 that are not within minimum setback areas shall be
considered part of the footprint area of a story for purposes of calculating parcel coverage
for that story. Areas directly below a fully-enclosed second-story cantilever shall be
considered part of the ground floor footprint area for purposes of calculating ground floor
parcel coverage. Areas in any single-story portion of the building that exceed the height
of the second story shall be considered part of the second-story footprint area for
purposes of calculating second-story parcel coverage. The footprints of all principal and
6
accessory structures, including garages, carports, and roofed porches, shall be summed
in order to calculate parcel coverage. The following structures shall be included in the
calculation. Areas covered by or directly below the following shall be excluded from the
footprint area for purposes of determining parcel coverage:
A. Permitted projections into minimum setback areas pursuant to Section
9.21.110;
B. Eaves, awnings, canopies, sun shades, sills, cornices, belt courses, or other
similar solid architectural features not within minimum setback areas project
up to the same distances as permitted pursuant to Section 9.21.110;
C. Greenhouse windows, bay windows, or similar architectural features not
within minimum setback areas projecting to the same dimensions as
permitted pursuant to Section 9.21.110;
D. First-story roofed front porches of principal buildings that are open on at
least the front and one side elevation not within minimum setback areas;
E. Upper-story stepback areas that are open to the sky or covered by a roof
structure that is at least 50% open to the sky;
F. First-story outdoor areas open on at least two sides that are covered or
below a permitted upper-story outdoor space;
G. Projecting upper-story outdoor space not within minimum setback areas
open on at least two contiguous sides and open to the sky or covered by a
roof structure that is at least 50% open to the sky;
H. Within the R1 District, accessory dwelling units as defined in Section
9.31.300;
7
I. Within the R1 District, areas totaling no more than 3% of the parcel area
directly below a fully enclosed second-story cantilever; and
J. Within the R1 District, accessory structures that are open to the sky or
covered by a roof structure that is at least 50% open to the sky.
A. The area of a parcel directly covered by the footprint of all buildings or
structures on the parcel;
B. The area of a parcel directly below any upper portion of a building or
structure that is cantilevered beyond the edge of the first level of a building or structure
except for permitted projections as specified in Section 9.21.110; and
C. The area of a parcel directly below those portions of any balcony, stairway,
porch, platform, or deck that is enclosed on at least three sides.
SECTION 3. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.07.030 is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Section 9.07.030 Development Standards
Table 9.07.030 prescribes the development standards for the Single-Unit
Residential (R1) District. Additional regulations, including incentives for the retention of
existing homes, are denoted with Section numbers throughout the table. Specific R1
District design review criteria is located directly following the table.
Table 9.07.030: Development Standards—Single-Unit Residential District
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Parcel and Density Standards
Minimum Parcel Area
(sq. ft.) 5,000
8
Table 9.07.030: Development Standards—Single-Unit Residential District
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Maximum Parcel
Area
(sq. ft.)
See Section 9.21.030(B)
Minimum Parcel
Width (ft.) 50 For parcels bounded by the
centerlines of First Court Alley,
Seventh Street, Montana Place
North Alley, and Adelaide Drive,
the minimum parcel width is 100
ft. and the minimum parcel depth
is 175 ft.
Minimum Parcel
Depth (ft.) 100
Maximum Residential
Density
1 unit per parcel plus 1
Accessory Dwelling Unit subject
to Section 9.31.300
A duplex may be permitted with
an MUP as provided in Table
9.07.020.
Maximum Parcel Coverage (% of Parcel Area)
One-story
structure less than
18 ft. in height
50%
For parcels less than 5,000 sq.
ft., a maximum parcel coverage
equaling 2,500 sq. ft. shall be
permitted.
Existing one-story
structure less than
18 ft. in height
with one-story
additions less than
18 ft. in height
55%
For parcels less than 5,000 sq.
ft., a maximum parcel coverage
equaling 2,750 sq. ft. shall be
permitted.
One-story
structure 18 ft. or
more in height
45%
For parcels less than 5,000 sq.
ft., a maximum parcel coverage
equaling 2,250 sq. ft. shall be
permitted.
Two-story
structure
Parcel coverage shall be the sum
of ground floor parcel coverage
and second story parcel
coverage and shall be no more
than
45%
For parcels less than 5,000 sq.
ft., a maximum parcel coverage
equaling 2,250 sq. ft. shall be
permitted with no more than
1,125 sq. ft. allowable on the
second story.
9
Table 9.07.030: Development Standards—Single-Unit Residential District
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Accessory
Dwelling Unit Exempt from parcel coverage See Section 9.31.300
Building Form and Location
Maximum Number of
Stories 2
Maximum Building Height (ft.)
Parcels up to
20,000 sq. ft. in
area
28 ft.
with no wall height above 23 ft.
Parcels greater
than 20,000 sq. ft.
in area and with a
front parcel line at
least 200 ft.
in length
28 ft. for flat roof
32 ft. for pitched roof
Projections into
Height Limits See Section 9.21.060, Height Projections
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Front Per Official Districting Map or 20
ft. if not specified
Side - One-story
structure less than
18 ft. in height
10% of parcel width or 3.5 ft.,
whichever is greater, but no
more than 15 ft. required
10
Table 9.07.030: Development Standards—Single-Unit Residential District
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Side - Aggregate
of both sides for a
two-story structure
or one-story
structure 18 ft. or
more in height
30% of parcel width, but no more
than 45 ft. required and each
side shall be at least 10% of the
parcel width or 3.5 ft., whichever
is greater
The aggregate side setback
requirement does not apply to the
following:
New structures on parcels
that are 45 ft. or less in
parcel width
Additions to existing
structures on parcels that
are less than 50 ft. in width
Structures on parcels less
than 5,000 sq. ft.
Rear 15 ft. from rear parcel line
11
Table 9.07.030: Development Standards—Single-Unit Residential District
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Additional Minimum Stepbacks for Upper Stories
Front Upper-Story
Stepback
The sum of all stepback areas
shall be at least 1% of total
parcel area and comply with the
following:
Each stepback area shall
have a minimum depth of
3% of total parcel depth
and shall be measured
from the required front
setback.
Any stepback area
exceeding 6% of total
parcel depth from the
required front setback
shall not be included in
calculating compliance
with this standard.
Any stepback area used
to comply with a side
upper-story stepback
requirement shall not be
included in calculating
compliance with this
standard.
This standard shall apply
to the total front building
elevation.
12
Table 9.07.030: Development Standards—Single-Unit Residential District
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Side Upper-Story
Stepbacks
The sum of all stepback areas
shall be at least 1% of total
parcel area and comply with the
following:
Each stepback areas shall
have a minimum depth of
20% of total parcel width
and shall be measured from
the side parcel line.
Any stepback area with a
depth exceeding 25% of
total parcel width from the
side parcel line shall not be
included in calculating
compliance with this
standard.
Any stepback area used to
comply with a front upper-
story stepback requirement
shall not be included in
calculating compliance with
this standard.
This standard shall apply to
each total side building
elevation.
13
Table 9.07.030: Development Standards—Single-Unit Residential District
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Sides—All portions
of buildings
exceeding 23 ft. in
height
No portion of a building
other than a permitted
projection shall intersect a
plane commencing at 23 ft.
in height at the minimum
side setback that extends
at an angle of 45-degrees
from the vertical toward the
interior of the site.
The 23 ft. height
measurement shall be
taken from the same
reference grade as
determined for the subject
site pursuant to
Section 9.04.050.
Upper-Story Outdoor Space
Maximum Size of
Individual Balcony,
Terrace, Deck,
First-Story Roof
Deck, or Similar
Outdoor Space
3% of parcel area or 300 sq. ft.,
whichever is less
Individual balconies, terraces,
decks, first-story roof decks, or
similar outdoor spaces larger
than 100 sq. ft. located in the rear
half of the parcel shall be set
back a minimum distance of 20%
of the parcel width from the side
parcel lines.
Maximum Size of
Roof Deck above
Second Story
3% of parcel area or 300 sq. ft.,
whichever is less
Maximum of 1 per parcel with a 7
ft. minimum setback from edges
of building
Openness and Use of Setbacks
Maximum Front Setback Paving (% of required front setback area)
Parcels 25 ft. or
more in width 50%
Parcels less than
25 ft. in width 60%
Building Projections
into Setbacks See Section 9.21.110, Projections into Required Setbacks
14
Table 9.07.030: Development Standards—Single-Unit Residential District
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Excavation for Lightwells, Stairwells, and Access to Subterranean Garages and
Basements
Basements and
Subterranean
Garages
No basement or subterranean
garage shall extend into any
setback area, except for any
basement or garage located
beneath an accessory building
which is otherwise permitted
within a setback area, if such
basement, semi-subterranean, or
subterranean garage is located
at least 5 ft. from any parcel line.
Lightwells and
Stairwells
Side and rear setbacks may
be utilized for lightwells or
stairways to below-grade
areas.
Excavated areas shall be set
back a minimum of 10% of the
parcel width from any parcel
line measured to the interior
wall surface of these
excavated areas.
For parcels where the
aggregate side setback is not
required, up to a total of 50 sq.
ft. within the side and rear
setbacks may be utilized for
lightwells or stairways to below-
grade areas.
Retaining walls shall not be
included in calculations for
these excavated areas.
Excavation for
Access
Excavation in the front setback
area for a driveway, stairway,
doorway, or other such element
for access purposes shall be no
deeper than 3 ft. below existing
grade.
Vehicle Accommodation
Parking See Sections 9.28.070, Location of Parking
Section 9.28.120, Parking Design and Development Standards
Driveways
On parcels less than 100 ft. in width, no more than one driveway
permitted
See Section 9.28.120, Parking Design and Development
Standards
15
Table 9.07.030: Development Standards—Single-Unit Residential District
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Incentives for Retention of Existing Homes
Building Additions Section 9.21.170, Building Additions Extending into Minimum Side
Setbacks
Modifications to
Development
Standards
Chapter 9.43 Modification and Waivers
Architectural Review
Architectural Review See Section 9.07.030(A)
Additional Standards
Accessory Buildings
and Structures Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings and Structures
Accessory Dwelling
Units Section 9.31.300, Accessory Dwelling Units
Basements Section 9.52.020.0230, Basement Definition
Fences, Walls, and
Hedges Section 9.21.050, Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Home Occupation Section 9.31.160, Home Occupation
Landscaping Chapter 9.26, Landscaping
Lighting Section 9.21.080, Lighting
Off-Street Parking Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation
Private Tennis Courts Section 9.31.250, Private Tennis Courts
Projections from
Buildings into
Minimum Setbacks
Section 9.21.110, Projections from Buildings into Minimum
Setbacks
Projections into
Height Limits Section 9.21.060, Height Projections
Refuse and
Recycling Screening
and Enclosure
Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards
Solar Energy
Systems Section 9.21.150, Solar Energy Systems
16
A. Architectural Review.
1. Proposed development in the R1 Single-Unit District shall not be subject to
architectural review if it conforms to the development standards set forth
above except as follows:
a. The Architectural Review Board shall review any proposed duplex
pursuant to Section 9.55.140.
b.
i. The Architectural Review Board shall review proposed
development that is located on a parcel with a grade diffrential
of 12.5 feet or more between the front and rear parcel lines,
and associated with the following:
(a) new residential building; or
(b) a 50 percent or greater square foot addition to an
existing dwelling unit.
ii. A proposed structure may be approved if its size, mass, and
placement are found to be compatible with improvements in
the immediate neighborhood.
2. The Architectural Review Board shall review and may approve proposed
development that does not conform to the development standards set forth
above as follows:
a. The Architectural Review Board shall review any proposed addition
of 500 square feet or less that is regarded as a third story that is
17
located on a parcel with a grade differential of 12.5 or more between
the front and rear parcel lines. The Architectural Review Board may
approve such an addition if the following findings of fact are made
i. the street frontage and overall massing are compatible with
the existing scale and neighborhood context;
ii. the addition does not enlarge the first-story of the existing
residence such that a nonconforming condition is expanded;
and
iii. the properties in the immediate neighborhood will not be
substantially impacted.
b.
i. The Architectural Review Board shall review the following:
(a) Any proposed new structure on a parcel that is more
than 45 feet in width that does not comply with the
minimum aggregate side setback but that is set back a
minimum of 10% of parcel width on each side;
(b) Any proposed addition to an existing structure on a
parcel 50 feet or more that does not comply with the
minimum aggregate side setback but that is set back a
minimum of 10% of parcel width on each side;
(c) Any proposed two-story structure that does not
conform to the standard set forth above for additional
minimum stepbacks for upper stories;
18
(d) Any proposed structure that does not conform to the
standards for subterranean garages and basements
set forth in Table 9.07.030, Chapter 9.28 (Parking), and
Section 9.52.020.230 of this Code;
(e) Any proposed individual upper story balcony, terrace,
deck, first-story roof deck, or similar outdoor space that
does not conform to the standard set forth above;
(f) Any proposed structure with garage doors that face the
public street, are located within the front half of the
parcel, and (i) are not set back from the primary façade
facing the public street a minimum of 5 feet or (ii) are
more than 16 feet in width; or
(g) Any proposed structure that includes a first-story porch
or second-story balcony that (a) is open on at least
three sides, (b) has a height of no more than 14 feet,
including parapets and railings, (c) projects into the
minimum front setback and (d) exceeds 50 percent of
the front building width as measured at the front
façade.
ii. The Architectural Review Board may approve a design
modification set forth in this subsection if the following findings
of fact are made:
19
(a) There are special circumstances or exceptional
characteristics applicable to the property involved,
including size, shape, topography, surroundings, or
location of the existing improvements or mature
landscaping on the site;
(b) Granting the design modification will not be detrimental
or injurious to the property or to improvements in the
general vicinity and district in which the property is
located;
(c) Granting the design modification will not impair the
integrity and character of surrounding context, or
impact the light, air, open space, or privacy of adjacent
properties;
(d) If the design modification includes a modification or
addition to a building on the City’s Historic Resources
Inventory, the modification or addition is compatible
with the building’s historic architectural character, does
not result in the removal of historic building features,
and is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior
Standards for Rehabilitation; and
(e) The design modifications comply with the criteria set
forth in Section 9.55.140.
20
Table 9.07.030 prescribes the development standards for the Single Unit Residential
Districts. Additional regulations are denoted with Section numbers in the right-hand
column or with individual letters in parentheses. Section numbers refer to other Sections
of this Article, while individual letters in parentheses refer to Subsections that directly
follow the table.
Within the R1 District, special standards apply to a number of specific geographic areas.
These areas are delineated as follows:
North of Montana. The area bounded by Montana Avenue, the northern City limits,
26th Street, and Ocean Avenue.
Sunset Park. The area bounded by Lincoln Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and the City
limits to the east and south.
North of Wilshire. The area bounded by Montana Avenue, 21st Court, Wilshire
Boulevard, and the City limits to the east.
Expo/Pico. The area bounded by Stewart Avenue, Exposition Boulevard, Centinela
Avenue, and Pico Boulevard.
The R1 District requirements are listed in three columns. The first column, “General
Standard” (GS) lists the regulations that apply throughout the R1 District unless otherwise
specified. The “North of Montana,” “Sunset Park/North of Wilshire,” and “Expo/Pico”
columns identify the special standards that apply to development in those areas. Where
necessary to provide additional detail, the second, third, fourth, and fifth columns also
include a reference to Subsections that follow the table. The sixth column and Additional
Standards at the end of the table list and cross-reference additional development
requirements applicable to the R1 District.
21
Table 9.07.030: Development Standards—R1 Single-Unit Residential Districts
Standard General
Standard
North of
Montana
Sunset
Park/North
of Wilshire
Expo/Pico Additional
Standards
Parcel and Density Standards
Minimum Parcel Area
(sq. ft.) 5,000 GS GS GS
Maximum Parcel Area
(sq. ft.)
See
9.21.030(B) GS GS GS
Minimum Parcel Width (ft.) 50
50 ft.; 100 ft.
in specific
subarea.
See (A)
GS GS
Minimum Parcel Depth (ft.) 100
100 ft.; 175
ft. in specific
subarea.
See (A)
GS GS
Maximum Residential
Density
1 unit per
parcel plus 1
accessory
dwelling unit
subject to
Section
9.31.300. A
duplex may
be permitted
with MUP as
provided in
Table
9.07.020
GS GS GS
Maximum Parcel Coverage
(% of Parcel Area)
35%; 50% for
one-story
structure not
exceeding 18
ft. in height
See (B) See (B) See (B)
Building Form and Location
Maximum Number of Stories 2 GS GS GS
Maximum Building Height (ft.)
Parcels up to 20,000 sq.
ft. in area 28 32. See (C) GS GS
Parcel greater than
20,000 sq. ft. in area and
with a front parcel line at
least 200 ft. in length
28 ft. for flat
roof; 35 ft. for
pitched roof
GS GS GS
22
Table 9.07.030: Development Standards—R1 Single-Unit Residential Districts
Standard General
Standard
North of
Montana
Sunset
Park/North
of Wilshire
Expo/Pico Additional
Standards
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Section
9.21.110,
Projections
into Required
Setbacks
Front Per Official Districting Map or 20 ft. if not specified
Each Interior Side-Basic
Requirement – Structures
18 ft. in height or less
Greater of
10% of
parcel width
or 3.5 ft. but
no more than
15 ft.
required
GS GS
GS (for all
structures
up to the
maximum
height
limitation in
Expo/Pico)
Aggregate of Both Interior
Sides –Structures over
18 ft. in height
30% of
parcel width,
but no more
than 45 ft.
required and
at least 10%
of the parcel
width, or a
minimum of
3.5 ft.,
whichever is
greater. See
(D)
GS GS NA
Rear 25 GS GS GS
Garage Setbacks See Section 9.28.070(A)(1)
Additional Minimum Stepbacks for Upper Stories
Front—Any portion of
front elevation above 14
ft. in height and
exceeding 75% of
maximum buildable front
elevation*
Average
amount
equal to 4%
of parcel
depth but no
more than 10
ft. required
Average
amount
equal to 8%
of parcel
depth but no
more than
12 ft.
required
GS GS
23
Table 9.07.030: Development Standards—R1 Single-Unit Residential Districts
Standard General
Standard
North of
Montana
Sunset
Park/North
of Wilshire
Expo/Pico Additional
Standards
Rear—Any portion of rear
elevation above 14 ft. in
height and exceeding
75% of maximum
buildable rear elevation*
Average
amount
equal to 4%
of parcel
depth but no
more than 10
ft. required
30% of
parcel depth
but no more
than 40 ft.
required
GS GS
Sides—Portions of
building above 14 ft. in
height and exceeding
50% of maximum
buildable side elevation*
1 ft. for every
2 ft. 4 in. of
height above
14 ft. and up
to 21 ft.
(measured
from
minimum
required side
setback line)
GS GS GS
Sides—All portions of
buildings exceeding 21 ft.
in height
See (E)
(measured
from
minimum
required side
setback line)
See (E)
(measured
from
minimum
required
side setback
line)
GS GS
Roof Decks
Additional 3
ft. from
normally
required
setback
12 ft. from
any interior
property
line. See (F)
GS GS
Limitations on Upper-Story
Balconies and Roof Decks NA
Aggregate
area may
not exceed
400 sq. ft.
Must be set
back 12 ft.
from interior
property
lines. See
(F)
NA NA
Openness and Use of Setbacks
24
Table 9.07.030: Development Standards—R1 Single-Unit Residential Districts
Standard General
Standard
North of
Montana
Sunset
Park/North
of Wilshire
Expo/Pico Additional
Standards
Maximum Front Setback
Paving (% of required front
setback area)
Parcels 25 ft. or more in
width 50% 40% GS GS
Parcels less than 25 ft. in
width 60% GS GS GS
Special Standards - Building
Projections into Required
Setbacks
See (G) See (G) See (G) See (G)
Section
9.21.110,
Projections
into Required
Setbacks
Excavation for Lightwells,
Stairwells, and Access to
Subterranean Garages and
Basements
See (H) See (H) See (H) See (H)
Vehicle Accommodation
Parking
See Sections 9.28.070, Location of Parking and
Section 9.28.120, Parking Design and Development
Standards
Section
9.28.070(A)(1)
, Above
Ground
Parking—
Residential
Districts
Required in
enclosed
garage
Driveways On parcels less than 100 ft. in width, no more than
one driveway permitted
Section
9.28.120,
Parking
Design and
Development
Standards
Architectural Review
Architectural Review See Section 9.07.030(I)
Additional Standards
Accessory Structures Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings and Structures
Exceptions to Height Limits Section 9.21.060, Height Exceptions
Fences and Walls Section 9.21.050, Fences, Walls, and Hedges
25
Table 9.07.030: Development Standards—R1 Single-Unit Residential Districts
Standard General
Standard
North of
Montana
Sunset
Park/North
of Wilshire
Expo/Pico Additional
Standards
Home Occupation Section 9.31.160, Home Occupation
Landscaping Chapter 9.26, Landscaping
Lighting Section 9.21.080, Lighting
Off-Street Parking and
Loading Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation
Projections into Required
Setbacks Section 9.21.110, Projections into Required Setbacks
Solar Energy Systems Section 9.21.150, Solar Energy Systems
Refuse and Recycling
Screening and Enclosure Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards
Private Tennis Courts Section 9.31.250, Private Tennis Courts
* As used in this Chapter, the term “maximum buildable elevation” means the maximum potential
width or length of the elevation permitted by this Ordinance, which includes the applicable parcel
width or length minus the required minimum setback.
A. Parcel Width and Depth—Sub-area of North of Montana. For parcel bounded
by the centerlines of First Court Alley, Seventh Street, Montana Place North Alley,
and Adelaide Drive, the minimum parcel width is 100 feet and the minimum parcel
depth is 175 feet.
B. Maximum Parcel Coverage—Specific Areas.
1. North of Montana.
a. For parcels with a ground floor parcel coverage of no more than 35
percent, the maximum second floor parcel coverage, including the
second floor of all accessory structures, shall not exceed 26 percent
of the parcel area. Second floor parcel coverage may be increased
up to a maximum of 30 percent of the parcel area if the ground floor
square footage is reduced by an equivalent amount. Conversely, the
ground floor parcel coverage may be increased to a maximum of 40
26
percent if an equivalent amount is reduced on the second floor.
Parcels with only one-story structures not exceeding 18 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 18 feet in height.
b. The area of any patio, balcony, roof deck or terrace open on less
than 2 sides shall count towards parcel coverage and shall count for
second floor parcel coverage if the floor line is above 14 feet in
height.
2. Sunset Park/North of Wilshire.
a. For parcels with a ground floor parcel coverage of no more than 35 percent,
the maximum second floor parcel coverage, including the second floor of all
accessory structures, shall not exceed 26 percent of the parcel area.
Second floor parcel coverage may be increased up to a maximum of 30
percent of the parcel area if the ground floor square footage is reduced by
an equivalent amount. Conversely, the ground floor parcel coverage may
be increased to a maximum of 40 percent if an equivalent amount is
reduced on the second floor. Parcels with only one-story structures not
exceeding 18 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
27
count towards second floor parcel coverage, except where the roofline of
the single story portion does not exceed 18 feet in height.
3. Expo/Pico.
a. The maximum parcel coverage shall be 40 percent, except that
parcel between 3,001 and 5,000 square feet in area may have a
parcel coverage of no more than 50 percent, and parcel of 3,000
square feet or smaller may have a parcel coverage of no more than
60 percent.
C. Maximum Building Height—Additional Standards
North of Montana. On parcels of less than 20,000 square feet, the maximum
building height shall be 32 feet, except that for a parcel with greater than 35 percent
parcel coverage, the maximum building height shall be one story, not to exceed 18
feet.
D. Side Setbacks—Structures over 18 feet in Specific Areas. In the Sunset Park
and North of Wilshire areas, the aggregate side setback requirement for structures
over 18 feet do not apply to the following:
1. New structures on parcels that are 45 feet or less in parcel width;
2. Additions to existing structures on parcels that are less than 50 feet in width;
and
3. Any development on parcels that are less than 5,000 square feet in area.
4. If modified by the Architectural Review Board in accordance with Section
9.07.030(I)(6)(d) and (7).
E. Required Stepbacks above Minimum Height
28
1. Additional Side Stepback Above 21 Feet in Height. Buildings above 21
feet in height shall not project above a plane as defined below:
a. General Standard. No portion of a building, except permitted
projections, shall intersect a plane commencing 21 feet in height at
the minimum side setback and extending at an angle of 45 degrees
from the vertical toward the interior of the site. The 21-foot height
measurement shall be taken from the same reference grade as
determined for the subject site pursuant to Section 9.04.050.
b. North of Montana. No portion of the building, except permitted
projections, shall intersect a plane commencing 21 feet in height at
the minimum side setback and extending at an angle of 30 degrees
from the horizontal toward the interior of the parcel. The 21-foot
height measurement shall be taken from the same reference grade
as determined for the subject site pursuant to Section 9.04.050.
2. Roof Decks. Roof decks shall be set back at least 3 feet from the minimum
side setback line. The height of any railings or parapets associated with
such roof decks shall not exceed the maximum allowable building height for
the structure.
3. Modifications to Required Stepbacks. Required stepbacks may be
modified pursuant to Chapter 9.43, Modifications and Waivers and, if
deemed necessary by the Director, review and approval by the Architectural
Review Board.
29
F. Standards for Upper Story Balconies and Roof Decks—North of Montana. In
the North of Montana Area, the following limitations apply:
1. Maximum Area. The aggregate square footage of second floor balconies,
terraces or roof decks shall not exceed 400 square feet.
2. Setbacks. Any individual second floor balconies, terraces, or roof decks
greater than 50 square feet in area and located in the rear two-thirds of the
parcel shall be set back 12 feet from any property line.
G. Building Projections into Required Setbacks. Notwithstanding the provisions of
Section 9.21.110, Projections into Required Setbacks, the following provisions
apply in the R1 District:
1. Exterior stairs and required fire escapes shall not project into the required
front or side setback areas in the North of Montana area.
2. Porte cocheres not more than 20 feet long, not more than 14 feet in height
including railings or parapets, and open on three sides may project into a
required side yard but may not be closer than 3 feet to the parcel line or as
required by Building Code.
3. Balconies and porches open on at least two sides with a height of no more
than 14 feet, including parapets and railings, that do not exceed 50 percent
of the front building width measured at the front façade may project up to 6
feet into the required front setback. Stairs less than 3 feet above finished
grade may project an additional 4 feet into the required front setback.
30
H. Excavation in Required Setbacks. In addition to the provisions of Section
9.21.110, Projections into Required Setbacks, the following limitations apply to
development in the R1 District.
1. Basements and Subterranean Garages. No basement or subterranean
garage shall extend into any required yard setback area, except for any
basement or garage located beneath an accessory building which is
otherwise permitted within a yard area, if such basement, semi-
subterranean or subterranean garage is located at least 5 feet from any
property line.
2. Lightwells and Stairwells.
a. General Standard. Up to a total of 50 square feet of area in the side
and rear setbacks may be utilized for lightwells or stairways to below-
grade areas of the main building and any accessory buildings.
b. North of Montana. Side and rear setbacks may be utilized for
lightwells or stairways to below-grade areas of the main building and
any accessory building provided such excavated area is set back a
minimum of 10 percent of the parcel width from the property line.
3. Excavation for Access to Subterranean Structures.
a. General Standard. Excavation in the front setback area for a
driveway, stairway, doorway, lightwell, window, or other such
element to a subterranean or semi-subterranean garage or
basement shall be no deeper than 3 feet below existing grade. The
Architectural Review Board may approve a modification to allow
31
excavations to extend into the front setback for parcels with an
elevation rise of 5 feet from the front property line to a point 50 feet
towards the interior of the site if it finds that topographic conditions
necessitate that such excavation be permitted.
b. North of Montana. In the North of Montana Area, no excavation for a
driveway, stairway, doorway, lightwell, window, or other such
element to a subterranean or semi-subterranean garage or
basement shall be permitted in the front setback area. This
prohibition shall not be modified by the Architectural Review Board
or by the procedures of Chapter 9.43, Modifications and Waivers.
I. Architectural Review. No building or structure in the R1 Single-Unit District shall
be subject to architectural review pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter except:
1. Properties installing roof or building-mounted parabolic antennae (only with
respect to the antennae and screening);
2. Duplexes;
3. Any structure above 14 feet in height that does not conform to the required
yard stepbacks for structures above 14 feet in height;
4. Any structure that does not conform to the limitations on access to
subterranean garages and basements;
5. Any development in the North of Montana area with regard to the following
conditions only:
a. Any development with an aggregate square footage of second floor
balconies, terraces or roof decks which exceeds 400 square feet.
32
b. Any structure with garage doors facing the public street within the
front one-half of the parcel which are not set back from the building
façade a minimum of 5 feet and/or are more than 16 feet in width.
c. Any structure with balconies or porches open on at least 2 sides with
a maximum height of 14 feet including parapets and railings, which
project into the required front yard and which exceed 50 percent of
the front building width measured at the front façade.
d. Any structure with side yard setbacks that do not conform with
Section 9.07.030 but which has minimum setbacks for each side yard
equal to 10 percent of the parcel width.
6. Any development in the North of Wilshire and Sunset Park areas with regard
to the following conditions only:
a. Any structure associated with a new residential building, substantial
remodel, or a 50 percent or greater square foot addition to an existing
home located on a parcel with a grade differential of 12.5 feet or more
between the front and rear parcel lines. The Architectural Review
Board may approve projects pursuant to this subdivision (a) of
subsection (6) if the following finding of fact is made: the size, mass,
and placement of the proposed structure is compatible with
improvements in the surrounding neighborhood. No other findings of
fact are required.
b. Any addition of 500 square feet or less, which is regarded as a third
story and therefore not otherwise permitted for an existing residential
33
structure, located on a parcel with a grade differential of 12.5 feet or
more between the front and rear parcel lines, may be approved if the
following findings of fact are made:
i. The street frontage and overall massing are compatible with
the existing scale and neighborhood context;
ii. The addition does not enlarge the first floor of the existing
residence such that a nonconforming condition is expanded;
and
iii. The properties in the immediate neighborhood will not be
substantially impacted.
c. Any structure with garage doors facing the public street within the
front one-half of the parcel which are not set back a minimum of 5
feet from the front setback line and/or are more than 16 feet in width.
d. Any structure on a parcel that is 50 feet or more in width that does
not comply with Section 9.07.030(D).
e. Any structure with balconies or porches open on at least 2 sides with
a maximum height of 14 feet including parapets and railings, which
project into the required front yard and which exceed 50 percent of
the front building width measured at the front façade.
7. The Architectural Review Board may approve the design modifications set
forth in Section 9.07.030(I)(5) provided all the following findings of fact are
made and may approve the design modifications set forth in Section
34
9.07.030(I)(6)(c) through (6)(e) provided that all of the following findings of
fact, except subdivision (e) of this subsection (7), are made:
a. There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics
applicable to the property involved, including size, shape
topography, surroundings, or location of the existing improvements
or mature landscaping on the site.
b. The granting of the design modification will not be detrimental nor
injurious to the property or improvements in the general vicinity and
district in which the property is located.
c. The granting of the design modification will not impair the integrity
and character of this R1 neighborhood, nor impact the light, air, open
space, and privacy of adjacent properties.
d. In the case of additions to buildings in the City’s Historic Resources
Inventory, the design modification is compatible with the building’s
historic architectural character, does not result in the removal of
historic building features, and the addition is consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation.
e. The design modifications also comply with the criteria established in
Section 9.55.140.
Any applicant for a development subject to architectural review under these
provisions shall provide certification of notice to all owners and commercial
and residential tenants of property within a radius of 300 feet from the
exterior boundaries of the property involved in the application, not less than
35
10 days in advance of Architectural Review Board consideration of the
matter, which notice and certification thereof shall be in a form satisfactory
to the Director.
8. Any existing structure that would not comply with the minimum side yard
setback of 10 percent of the parcel width required by Section 9.07.030 due
to the combination of 2 contiguous parcels into a single building site. The
Architectural Review Board may approve a modification to the minimum
side yard setback provided the following findings of fact are made:
a. Only one of the side yard setbacks for the existing structure would
become nonconforming due to the combination of contiguous
parcels.
b. This nonconforming side yard setback would not physically change.
c. The aggregate setback on the combined lots shall be a minimum of
30 percent of the total combined lot width.
d. The combined lot width shall not exceed 120 feet.
e. The granting of the design modification will not be detrimental nor
injurious to the property or improvements in the general vicinity and
district in which the property is located.
9. In the event the property owner seeks to re-divide a parcel created through
the combination of contiguous lots after the Architectural Review Board has
acted pursuant to subsection (8) of this Section, the Architectural Review
Board may approve such a re-division provided the following finding of fact
is made:
36
a. No construction has taken place since the original combination of
parcels.
SECTION 4. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.21.020 is hereby amended
to read as follows:
9.21.020 Accessory Buildings and Structures
Accessory buildings structures shall conform to the same property development
standards as main buildings except as required by this Section. Accessory buildings in
Residential Districts shall include, including, but not be limited to, greenhouse and garden
structures, storage sheds, workshops, garages, and other buildings structures that are
detached from the main principal building. Accessory structures in Residential Districts
shall include, but be not limited to, unenclosed carports, gazebos, cabanas, or other
similar structures; air conditioners, compressors, electric vehicle charging equipment,
pool and spa filters, or other mechanical equipment; barbecues; sinks and counters;
fountains; freestanding fireplaces; firepits; above ground swimming pools and spas; and
other structures with a fixed location that are detached from the principal building.
Accessory structures greater than 14 feet in height are not permitted. Accessory
structures shall be erected, structurally altered, converted, enlarged, moved, and
maintained, in compliance with the following regulations:
A. Relation to Existing Structures Principal Buildings. An accessory building may
only be constructed on a parcel with a legally-permitted main principal building. An
accessory building will shall be considered part of the principal building if the
accessory building is located less than 6 feet from the principal building or if
connected to it by fully enclosed space.
37
B. Dwelling Units in Accessory Structures Buildings. An accessory building on a
parcel occupied by a single-unit detached structure may only be used as a
separate dwelling unit in compliance with the requirements of Section 9.31.300,
Accessory Dwelling Units.
C. Accessory Buildings up to 14 Feet in Residential Districts. Accessory
buildings and structures not more than 14 feet or one story in height shall conform
to the following standards:
1. Location.
a. Accessory buildings 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 subsections (b)
and (c) below.
b. Accessory buildings no more than 14 feet in height may be
located in the rear setback but shall be located at least 5 feet
from the rear parcel line. A garage or garage portion of such
an accessory building may extend up to one interior side
parcel line within the rear 35 feet of a parcel.
c. A garage or garage portion of an accessory building may
extend to the rear parcel line abutting an alley, provided that
vehicle access is not taken from the alley. Where vehicle
access is taken from an alley, garages shall be set back at
least 5 feet from the rear parcel line abutting said alley.
38
d. Accessory buildings may be located in a required the rear
setback and shall be located at least 15 feet from the
centerline of a rear alley.
e. Accessory structures shall not be located within any front or
minimum side setback except as expressly authorized below:
i. Fountains, fire pits, and similar ornamental landscape
features not to exceed 42 inches in height.
ii. Underground mechanical equipment.
iii. Electric vehicle charging equipment shall be permitted
within any minimum side setback but shall not be
permitted within any minimum front setback.
2. Dimensions.
a. On a reversed corner parcel, accessory buildings shall not be
located nearer to the street side parcel line of such corner
parcel than one-half 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.
b. Any accessory building on a through parcel shall not project
into any front setback and shall not be located in any required
minimum side setback.
3. Sloped Parcels.
a. Where the elevation of the ground at a point 50 feet from the
front parcel line of a parcel and midway between the side
39
parcel lines differs 12 feet or more from the curb level, a
private garage, not exceeding one story nor 11 feet in height
for a flat roof and one story nor 14 feet in height for a pitched
roof, may be located within the required front setback,
provided that every portion of the garage building is at least 5
feet from the front parcel line and does not occupy more than
50 percent of the width of the front parcel line.
b. In all OP Districts, a garage or garage entrance on a parcel
with an existing grade differential of 10 feet or more between
the midpoint of the front parcel line and the midpoint of the
rear parcel line may be set back a distance equal to the
average garage setback of adjacent garage(s), but not less
than 5 feet, when the interior garage width does not exceed
20 feet and the height does not exceed 11 feet for a flat roof
and 14 feet for a pitched roof.
4. Facilities. Except for Accessory Dwelling Units established in compliance
with Section 9.31.300 of this Ordinance, accessory buildings may not
contain kitchens or full baths. An accessory building that is not an approved
Accessory Dwelling Unit may contain a sink and toilet, but may not contain
a shower or tub enclosure. A shower that is outside and unenclosed is
permitted.
D. Accessory Buildings over One Story or 14 Feet in Residential Districts.
Accessory buildings and structures that exceed 14 feet or one story in height may
40
only be erected, structurally altered, converted, enlarged, or moved in any
Residential District in conformance with shall conform to the following regulations
standards:
1. Maximum Floor Area. The total floor area of an accessory building that
exceeds 14 feet or one story in height shall not exceed 650 square feet
including any area approved for use as a garage. No accessory building
shall have a second floor that exceeds 250 square feet in size. Accessory
Dwelling Units are exempt from this requirement pursuant to Section
9.31.300.
2. Maximum Building Height. The accessory building shall not exceed two
stories or 24 feet in height.
3. Setbacks. The accessory building shall conform to all setback
requirements of the Residential District and the following requirements:
a. A one-story garage or the garage portion of an accessory building
may extend into the rear setback and may extend to one interior side
property line on the rear 35 feet of a parcel if the second-story has a
minimum separation of 20 feet from the second-story of the principal
building.
b. The accessory building shall have the same minimum side setback
requirement as the principal building on the parcel, but in no case
less than 5 feet.
c. The second story portion of an accessory building that is directly
above the garage may extend into the required rear setback but shall
41
be no closer than 15 feet from the centerline of the alley or 15 feet
from the rear property line where no alley exists, and may not extend
into any required minimum side setback.
4. Exterior Features. In the North of Montana area Single-Unit Residential
(R1) District, first-story roof decks, landings, upper level walkways, and
balconies on accessory buildings, not including Accessory Dwelling Units,
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. Roof decks above the second-story are prohibited.
5. Design Compatibility. The architectural design of the accessory building
shall be compatible with the design of the principal dwelling and surrounding
residential development in terms of building form, materials, colors, and
exterior finishes.
6. Kitchen. The accessory building shall not contain a kitchen unless
specifically permitted as an Accessory Dwelling Unit pursuant to Section
9.31.300, Accessory Dwelling Units.
7. Full Bath. The accessory building may contain a sink and toilet, but shall
not contain a shower or tub enclosure unless specifically permitted as an
Accessory Dwelling Unit pursuant to Section 9.31.300. A shower that is
located outside and unenclosed may be permitted.
42
8. Renting. No accessory building shall be rented for any purpose or
otherwise used as an Accessory Dwelling Unit unless specifically pursuant
to Section 9.31.300.
SECTION 5. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.21.060 is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Section 9.21.060 Height Exceptions Projections
No structure shall project above the height limits established in this Article except as
specified in this Section.
A. Building-Mounted and Attached Structures. Table 9.21.060 establishes
the maximum permitted projection(s) above the height limit of a building for structures
that are typically mounted or attached to a building. These projections are by right, with
no discretionary permit required. Table 9.21.060 also establishes limitations in the
horizontal coverage of permitted projections. Some allowances apply in all Zoning
Districts while others are limited to specified Zoning Districts. In the Single-Unit
Residential (R1) District, allowed height projections into the minimum side stepback areas
above 23 feet shall be permitted. None of these projections shall permit occupiable space
above the height limit. The total aggregate coverage of projections shall not exceed 30
percent of a roof’s area. This limitation shall not apply to solar energy systems (see
Section 9.21.150).
43
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 5 ft. 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.
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.
44
SECTION 6. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.21.110 is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Section 9.21.110 Projections from Buildings into Required Minimum Setbacks
Table 9.21.110 sets forth the requirements for permitted projections from buildings
into required minimum setbacks. Development in the R1 District is subject to the
additional standards of Section 9.07.030(G); in the case of any conflict, the regulations of
the base District shall supersede those of this Section. In the Single-Unit Residential (R1)
District, only expressly authorized projections into the minimum side stepback areas
above 23 feet shall be permitted. Projections shall not be permitted closer than 4 feet to
any parcel line unless otherwise expressly authorized. Projections as listed below into
existing, nonconforming setback areas shall be permitted only if the projection does not
extend closer to the parcel line than would be permitted if the setback area conformed to
current standards. The types of projections and the limitations on such projections into
required minimum setbacks are permitted subject to Chapter 4.12, Noise; Section
9.31.180, Hazardous Visual Obstructions; and compliance with the California Building
Code as follows:
45
TABLE 9.21.110: ALLOWED PROJECTIONS FROM BUILDINGS INTO MINIMUM
SETBACKS
Projections Front
Setback
Street
Side
Setback
Interior
Side
Setback
Rear
Setback
Eaves, awnings, canopies, sun shades,
sills, cornices, belt courses, trellises,
arbors, and other similar architectural
features (also permitted within R1
stepback areas above 23 feet)
(projections shall not be closer than 1.5
feet to any property line)
30 in.
(no closer
than 1.5
ft. to
parcel
line)
30 in.
(no closer
than 1.5
ft, to
parcel
line)
1824 in.
(no closer
than 1.5 ft.
to parcel
line)
4 ft.
(no closer
than 1.5
ft. to
parcel
line)
Flues, chimneys, water heater enclosures
rain gutters, downspouts, and similar
vertical architectural projections not more
than 5 ft. wide parallel to the side setback
and that do not exceed 20% of the façade
width
All setbacks:
18 in. for structures with conforming
setbacks;
12 in. for structures with nonconforming
setbacks
Patios, porches, platforms, decks, and
other unenclosed areas not covered by a
roof or canopy and that may be raised
above the level of the adjacent setback
but do not extend more than 3 ft. above
the average natural grade except for
guard rails to the extent legally required
6 ft. 6 ft.
No limit
(can
extend to
parcel line)
No limit
(can
extend to
parcel
line)
In the R1 District, first-story porches and
second-story balconies open on 3 sides
with a height of no more than 14 ft.,
including parapets and railings, that do
not exceed 50% of the front building width
measured at the front façade.
6 ft. Not
permitted
Not
permitted
Not
permitted
In the R1 District, stairs with no roof or
canopy less than 3 ft. above finished
grade associated with a first-story front
porch projection
4
additional
feet
Not
permitted
Not
permitted
Not
permitted
Balconies, decks, porches, and similar
structures that are open, unenclosed on
at least 2 sides
30 in. 30 in. Not
permitted 4 ft.
46
TABLE 9.21.110: ALLOWED PROJECTIONS FROM BUILDINGS INTO MINIMUM
SETBACKS
Projections Front
Setback
Street
Side
Setback
Interior
Side
Setback
Rear
Setback
In any OP district, second Second-floor
decks, patios, or balconies, covered or
uncovered, adjacent to primary living
spaces in any OP Districts
30 in. 30 in. 30 in. 4 ft.
Unroofed access facilities, including stairs
and wheelchair ramps, with a height,
including railings, of no more than 6 ft.
above average natural grade
8 ft., but may extend any distance to
accommodate wheelchair ramps or similar
ADA access facilities
Exterior access facilities leading to the
second or higher story of a building,
including open or enclosed fire escapes
and open, unroofed fireproof outside
stairways, landings, exterior corridors,
and wheelchair ramps. This projection
shall not be permitted within the R1
District.
Not
permitted
Not
permitted
12 in. or 2
in. per foot
of required
side
setback,
whichever
is greater
4 ft.
Greenhouse windows and bay windows
that are not greater than 6 ft. wide parallel
to the setback if all such windows are
cantilevered only and do not extend to the
ground level, provided the structure has a
conforming setback
18 in. 18 in. 18 in. 18 in.
Porte cocheres not more than 20 ft. long,
not more than 14 ft. in height, including
required railings or parapets, and open on
at least 23 sides except for necessary
structural supports
Not
permitted
in front
setback
No limit (can extend to parcel
line) unless limited by Building
Code Permitted in side and rear
setback but may not be closer
than 3 feet to the parcel line or as
required by Building Code
Mailbox canopies not more than 10 ft.
long 30 in. 30 in. 30 in. 4 ft.
47
TABLE 9.21.110: ALLOWED PROJECTIONS FROM BUILDINGS INTO MINIMUM
SETBACKS
Projections Front
Setback
Street
Side
Setback
Interior
Side
Setback
Rear
Setback
Air conditioners, compressors, hot tub
motors, pool filters, and other mechanical
equipment
Not
permitted
Not
permitted
Not
permitted
No limit
(can
extend to
rear
parcel
line)
Detached structures and mechanical
equipment
See Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings
and Structures
Water heaters enclosures and tankless
water heaters
Not
permitted
18 in. for structures
with conforming
setbacks;
12 in. for structures
with nonconforming
setbacks
No limit
(can
extend to
parcel
line)
Utility equipment including, but not limited
to, gas, water, and electrical meters
Not
permitted
(unless
required
by
Building
and Utility
Codes)
18 in. for structures
with conforming
setbacks;
12 in. for structures
with nonconforming
setbacks
No limit
(can
extend to
parcel
line)
Electric vehicle charging equipment Not
permitted
No limit
(can
extend to
parcel
line)
No limit
(can
extend to
parcel line)
No limit
(can
extend to
parcel
line)
Solar energy system equipment See Section 9.21.150, Solar Energy
Systems
48
SECTION 7. Santa Monica Municipal Coe Section 9.21.170 is hereby amended to
read as follows:
9.21.170 Building Additions Extending into Required Minimum Side Yard
Setbacks
In all residential districts, an addition(s) to an existing structure building that has a
nonconforming side yard setback may also continue to extend into the required minimum
side yard setback provided all of the following criteria are met:
A. The addition(s) do(es) not exceed one-story and fourteen feet in height.
B. The addition(s) do(es) not extend closer to the side property line than the existing
structure. The addition(s) continue(s) the façade setback line of the existing
structure.
C. The addition(s) do(es) not extend closer than four feet to the side property line.
D. The addition(s) do(es) not exceed fifteen feet in length parallel to the side property
line.
E. The addition(s) is (are) not limited to one side of the existing structure and does
not may extend into both side yard setbacks.
F. There has been no prior addition under this Section.
49
SECTION 8. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.28.020 is hereby amended
to read as follows:
9.28.020 Applicability
The requirements of this Chapter apply to the following.
A. New Buildings and Land Uses. On-site parking shall be provided according to
the provisions of this Chapter at the time any building or structure is erected or any new
land use is established.
B. Addition, Enlargement of Use, and Change of Use of Existing Non-
Residential Buildings.
1. Except as provided in subsection (B)(2), a change of use shall provide the
difference between the required parking ratio for the proposed use and one
automobile parking space per 300 square feet.
2. Changes in use that create an increase of 3 or fewer required parking
spaces, calculated in accordance with subsection (B)(1), shall not be
required to provide additional on-site automobile parking according to the
provisions of this Chapter. Bicycle parking shall be provided in accordance
with Section 9.28.140.
3. Existing parking shall be maintained and additional parking shall be required
only for such addition, enlargement, or change of use and not for the entire
building or site. If the number of existing parking spaces is greater than the
requirements for such use, the number of spaces in excess of the
prescribed minimum may be counted toward meeting the parking
requirements for the addition, enlargement, or change in use.
50
4. A change in occupancy is not considered a change in use unless the new
occupant is a different use than the former occupant.
C. Addition, Enlargement of Use, and Change of Use of Existing Residential
Buildings.
1. For any new commercial, cultural, health, industrial, or commercial
entertainment and recreation use of an existing residential building,
structure including any addition and enlargement of use, parking spaces in
the number specified in Section 9.28.060, Required Off-Street Parking,
shall be provided for the entire parcel.
2. For any new residential or educational use of an existing residential building
or structure such that the new residential or educational use will require a
greater number of parking spaces as compared to the previous use, parking
spaces in the number specified in Section 9.28.060, Required Off-Street
Parking, shall be provided for the new use.
D. Additions and Alterations to Residential Buildings. When an addition or
alteration is proposed to a residential building that does not currently provide
parking in compliance with this Chapter, the following regulations apply:
1. Single Unit Dwellings. Parking shall be provided in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 9.28.060, Required Off-Street Parking, if 50 percent
or more additional square footage is added to the principal building at any
one time, or incrementally, after September 8, 1988, provided the aggregate
addition is 500 square feet or more.
51
12. Multi-Unit Dwellings. Additional parking shall be required for the proposed
addition or alteration if it increases the number of bedrooms of existing units.
23. Increased Number of Dwelling Units. The creation of additional dwelling
units through the alteration of an existing building or construction of an
additional structure or structures requires the provision of on-site parking to
serve the new dwelling units in compliance with the provisions of this
Chapter. This requirement does not apply when sufficient on-site parking
exists to provide the number of spaces required for the existing and new
dwelling units in compliance with all applicable requirements.
E. Construction Timing. On-site parking facilities required by this Chapter shall be
constructed or installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
uses that they serve.
SECTION 9. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.28.070 is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Section 9.28.070 Location of Parking
Required off-street parking and loading spaces shall be located on the same parcel
as the use they serve, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. Entrances to off-
street parking and loading should be located on a non-primary façade, except as
described below. Where a parcel contains more than 1 street frontage, the parking
entrance should be located on the secondary street or alley. All efforts should be made
to eliminate the impacts of parking entrances on main thoroughfares and transit-oriented
streets. The requirements of this Section shall not apply to vehicles on display by an
52
automobile dealer in a showroom or approved outdoor area unless otherwise specified
by this Ordinance.
A. Above Ground Parking.
1. Residential Districts. Parking shall be located in the rear half of the parcel
and at least 40 feet from a street-facing property line, except as provided
below:
a. Single-Unit Residential District. Required parking for single-unit
dwellings shall may be located within an enclosed garage in the front
half of the parcel provided the parking is located behind the primary
first-story facade facing the street. Required parking for all other
permitted use classifications in the single-unit residential district shall
not be required to be located within an enclosed garage; however,
allowable garages Garages may be located in the front half of the
parcel subject to the setback requirements of the Base District and
the following:
i. Garage doors facing a public street shall be located at least 5
feet behind the primary façade wall facing the street, and
never less than the required Base District setback. Setback
from Building Façade and Front Setback Line.
(1) North of Montana.
(2) North of Wilshire/Sunset Park. Garage doors facing a
public street shall be located at least 5 feet behind the
front setback line.
53
ii. Projection into Front Yard Setback. In the R1 Single-Unit
Residential District, a one-story garage attached to the
primary structure with a maximum height of 14 feet, including
parapets and railings, a maximum length of 25 feet, and with
garage doors perpendicular to the public street, shall be
allowed to project up to 6 feet into the required front yard if no
alley access exists, but may not extend closer than 20 feet to
the front property line.
b. Multi-Unit Residential Districts. Parking may be located in the front
half of the parcel in Multi-Unit Residential Districts provided that no
part of a required front setback shall be used for parking purposes.
c. Garage Openings and Doors.
i. Garage Opening Setback. Garage openings shall be located
the following minimum distances from parcel lines adjoining
streets and alleys:
(1) Front-entry garage: 20 feet.
(2) Side-entry garage: 5 feet.
(3) Garage with alley access: 15 feet from centerline of
alley.
(4) Narrow parcels: For garages with rear vehicular access
from an alley and located on a parcel 27 feet wide or
less, the side setback adjacent to a street or another
alley may be reduced to 3 feet.
54
(5) A minimum 22-foot turning radius is required from the
garage to the opposite side of the street alley, drive
aisle, or driveway.
ii. Garage Door Width. Except as provided in subsections (1)
and (2) below, if If a garage faces the front or street side parcel
line, the garage doors shall not be more than 18 feet wide. A
door to a single space shall not be more than 9 feet wide. Not
more than 1 double garage may be entered from the side
street side of a corner or a reversed corner parcel. However,
within the Single-Unit Residential (R1) District, the following
shall apply:
(1) Garage doors facing the public street may not exceed
16 feet in width unless located in the rear half of the
parcel except as provided in Section 9.07.030(A).
(2) On parcels 27 feet wide or less, no more than one
garage door shall be permitted facing the public street,
and the garage door shall not exceed 9 feet in width.
(1) North of Montana. Garage doors facing the public
street may not exceed 16 feet in width unless located
in the rear half of the parcel except as provided in
Section 9.07.030(I)(5).
(2) North of Wilshire/Sunset Park. Garage doors facing the
public street may not exceed 16 feet in width unless
55
located in the rear half of the parcel except as provided
in Section 9.07.030(I)(6).
d. Sloped Parcels. Garages may be located in the required front
setback when the elevation of the ground at a point 50 feet from the
front parcel line and midway between the side parcel lines differs 12
feet or more from the level of the curb or in all Ocean Park Districts
where there is a change in existing grade of 10 feet or more between
the midpoint of the front parcel line and the midpoint of the rear parcel
line subject to the following:
i. Height shall not exceed 14 feet if a pitched roof, 11 feet for a
flat roof, or 1 story;
ii. No portion of the garage may be closer than 5 feet from the
front property line;
iii. The garage may not occupy more than 50 percent of the width
of the front setback; and
iv. In all Ocean Park Districts, a garage that complies with
subsections (i) through (iii) may be set back a distance equal
to the average setback of garages on adjacent parcels if the
interior garage width does not exceed 20 feet.
e. Along the Pacific Coast Highway. Uncovered parking may be located
in the front half of the parcel and within the required front setback on
parcel located along the Pacific Coast Highway between the Santa
Monica Pier and the north City limits.
56
f. Rooftop Parking. Rooftop parking is prohibited in all Residential
Districts.
2. Mixed-Use and Non-Residential Districts.
a. Interior Side and Rear Setbacks. Above ground parking that does
not extend above the first floor level may be located within
required interior side and rear setback provided above ground
parking is set back a minimum of 5 feet from an interior parcel
line adjacent to a Residential District.
b. Rooftop Parking.
i. Rooftop parking is prohibited in the following areas:
(1) Neighborhood Commercial Districts; and
(2) Except as authorized in Section 9.31.070(D)(6),
within 50 feet of Residential Districts.
ii. Where permitted, rooftop parking areas shall be
screened at their perimeters to prevent light spill onto
adjacent properties. Non-skid or other similar surface
treatment on both floors and ramps of the rooftop shall
be required to prevent tire squeals. In order to minimize
noise and air impacts, exhaust vents and other
mechanical equipment shall be located as far from
residential uses as feasible consistent with Chapter 8
of the Municipal Code.
B. Subterranean Parking Structures.
57
1. Required Setbacks. A subterranean parking structure may be constructed
and maintained in any required setback area except in any required
unexcavated areas.
2. Openings. All openings for ingress and egress facing the front parcel line
shall be situated at or behind the front building line of the main building.
There shall be no more than 1 vehicular opening facing the front parcel line
for each main building. Pedestrian access openings are permitted.
3. Crossing Property Lines. Development located on 2 or more separate
parcels may share common subterranean parking garages or link
circulation between subterranean parking facilities only if the parcels are
combined pursuant to Section 9.21.030, Development on Multiple Parcels.
C. Semi-Subterranean Parking Structures.
1. Front Setback. Semi-subterranean parking structures shall not be located
within a required front setback.
2. Side and Rear Setback.
a. On parcels less than 50 feet in width, a semi-subterranean parking
structure may extend to both property lines and to the rear property
line.
b. On parcels having a width of 50 feet or greater, a semi-subterranean
parking structure may be constructed and maintained in any required
side or rear setback area except in a required unexcavated area.
3. Openings. All openings for ingress and egress facing the front parcel line
shall be situated at or behind the front building line of the main building.
58
There shall be no more than 1 vehicular opening facing the front parcel line
for each main building. Pedestrian access openings are permitted.
4. Parking Podium Height. The finished floor of the first level of the building
or structure above the parking structure shall not exceed 3 feet above the
average natural, sloped average natural, or theoretical grade of the parcel,
except for openings for ingress and egress.
SECTION 10. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.31.300 is hereby amended
to read as follows:
9.31.300 Accessory Dwelling Units
Notwithstanding the Accessory Buildings and Structures standards of Section
9.21.020, Accessory Dwelling Units shall be developed, located, and operated in
accordance 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.
59
B. Permit Requirements.
1. Zoning Conformance Review. An Accessory Dwelling Unit that conforms
to all standards of this Section not to exceed 650 square feet for parcels up
to and including 6,000 square feet in area or not to exceed 800 square feet
for parcels greater than 6,000 square feet in 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 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,
60
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 5 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 primary Single-Unit Dwelling 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 primary dwelling being less than
61
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 up to 650
square feet for parcels up to and including 6,000 square feet in area or up
to 800 square feet for parcels greater than 6,000 square feet in area, 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
Article.
5. Conversion on an Existing Accessory Building to an Accessory
Dwelling Unit. Notwithstanding subsection F, the conversion of an existing
accessory building up to 650 square feet for parcels up to and including
6,000 square feet in area or up to 800 square feet for parcels greater than
6,000 square feet in 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.
62
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 Article, 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 accessory structure up to 14
feet in height or within additions to existing accessory structures up to 14
feet in height shall comply with 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.
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
63
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 650 square feet for
parcels up to and including 6,000 square feet in area or shall not
exceed 800 square feet for parcels greater than 6,000 square feet in
area.
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 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.
64
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. For second
story portions of an Accessory Dwelling Unit constructed
above an existing garage, a setback of 5 feet from the side
and rear parcel lines shall be required.
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 650
square feet for parcels up to and including 6,000 square feet in area
65
or shall not exceed 800 square feet for parcels greater than 6,000
square feet in area.
i. The second story of an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not
exceed the floor area of the first story.
c. Maximum Building Height. The Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not
exceed two stories or 24 feet in height.
d. Exterior Features. First-story roof Roof decks, landings, upper level
walkways, and balconies shall not exceed an aggregate 35 square
feet in area and shall not be located on the side elevation closest to
a side parcel line or on the rear elevation; and shall have the same
minimum side setback requirement as the principal building on the
parcel, but in no case less than 5 feet; and shall be set back a
minimum 5 feet from the rear parcel line. Roof decks above the
second-story are prohibited. 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 Single-Unit Dwelling.
1. The Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be clearly subordinate to the main
dwelling unit on the parcel in terms of size, location, and appearance.
66
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 Article.
2. Exemptions. Notwithstanding any other parking required by this Section or
Chapter 9.28 of this Article, 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;
67
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 30 days.
SECTION 11. Any provision of the Municipal Code or appendices 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 12. 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 unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance
would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 13. 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
68
once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance
shall become effective 30 days from its adoption. Notwithstanding its effective
date, the provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to any application for a planning
entitlement, building permit, including plan check, submitted on or after January 1,
2020.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
LANE DILG
City Attorney
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Brian Weitman <brian@stc-qst.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 17, 2019 9:45 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:John Skinner
Subject:City of SM R1 update
To: Santa Monica City Council /City Planning Office | councilmtgitems@smgov.net
From: Brian & Amy Weitman
Re: R1 Update
We are strongly opposed to the current proposal restricting two‐story single‐family home size to 45% of lot
coverage and further reducing a second story to only 22.5%. This imposes way too dramatic of a reduction
from the original 61% ordinance and does not represent the view of most homeowners.
1‐ This will have a significant impact on land values. A 35% reduction in square footage (40% for
those with attached garage) is extreme.
2‐ The increased set back requirements for the second story will have a dramatic impact on
eliminating the “boxes” that have been built in the past and offended some homeowners. That is a
reasonable and good change, but implementing BOTH those increased set‐backs and the square
foot limitation is over kill. This will penalize those with modest two‐story homes whose family is
expanding or want to correct a floor‐plan flaw such as bedrooms on different levels.
3‐ Homeowners should not be forced to build an ADU to make up for that square footage they
may need if it is outside of what their family needs are. A more user‐friendly plan should be put in
place.
4‐ We live in one of the most beautiful locations in the world and we should be advocating more
yard space, not less. Incentivizing larger lot coverage for single‐family homes, on top of pushing for
ADU’s, further eats into open space. Some could argue that would look worse than homes with
61% lot coverage.
5‐ You are going to create a significant gap between the “haves”, those with 61% lot coverage
and ability to build a two‐story ADU and the “have nots” who fall into the new category.
6‐ We just found out about the potential of this major new ordinance passing yet heard it has
been discussed for over a year?! How many other homeowners are in the same boat and have not
been able to voice their opinions? A quick scan of local news publications and there is very little, if
any talk about this.
7‐ If input from residences at “open house” events (which we didn’t even know about) was
around 55%, why push for 45%?
For the reasons stated above, we STRONGLY oppose the proposed R‐1 Update and hope a more
reasonable approach is developed/considered.
Item 7-F 10/22/19
1 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
2
Thank You,
Brian & Amy Weitman
210 23rd St, Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 7-F 10/22/19
2 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Dorice Melamed <doricemel@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, October 19, 2019 9:20 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:R1-Zoning issue
To Sant Monica Council Members,
I have been a resident of Santa Monica since 1989.
I also do not like big mansions in the small lots of Santa Monica, but to go down from 61% lot coverage to a
45% lot coverage for R‐1 zone homes is absolutely ridiculous and uncalled for. I totally disagree with the
recommendations made by the planning Commission.
In all city meetings, the City members request civility. How civil is this that after listening to a very few Sunset
area park residents, and without any time for a deep consideration of the affects of their decisions and
without paying attention to the recommendations of the city staff, our DEAR planning commissioners made a
decision to go even lower than the 50% lot coverage recommendation? I really want to know how many of
the commissioners even live in a single family home and where? How can they make a decision that affects
the value and the comfortable living size of our homes so fast?
How civil is this that just a handful of people should rule the future of our lives in such a manner?
I was present at the planning meeting and saw first hand what happened. It was so obvious that it was the
emotions of the commissioners talking, versus pure thoughtfulness. I think we should not give in to real
estate agents who want larger homes that covers the whole lot, but to go to that small ratio is also unfair to
actual residents of the city.
Most, if not all of the complaints about size of new homes is from Sunset Park residents and it is not fair to
hold the rest of the residents of the city to the same requirements!
I totally disagree with the recommendations and do not accept them. I hope you will too.
Thank you
Dorice Melamed
Item 7-F 10/22/19
3 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
October 20, 2019
To: City Council
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 10/22/19 item 7F - R1 (Single-Unit Residential) Development Standards Update
The FOSP Board supports the following:
1) Maximum Parcel Coverage
a) 45% aggregate for new 2-story homes
b) 50% for new one-story homes
c) 55% for existing one-story homes with one-story additions
2) Maximum Height:
a) 28 feet for pitched roofs
b) 23 feet for flat roofs
3) Increased front and side upper story stepbacks
*******************************************************************************
Rationale:
A) Reduce maximum lot coverage for 2 -story homes from the IZO 50% limit to 45% to
balance the impact of 850 sq ft ADUs, or 1,000 sq ft ADUs if they’re more than one
bedroom (per AB 881), an increase from the previous city 650 and 800 sq ft maximums.
B) Maintain 50% maximum lot coverage for one-story homes.
C) Establish 55% for existing one-story homes with one-story additions as an incentive for
homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes.
D) Maintain the 28 foot maximum height for pitched roofs.
E) Reduce the height for flat roofs to 23 feet (the same side-wall height as 28-foot pitched
roof homes).
F) Increase front and side upper-story stepbacks to reduce massing and impact on
neighboring homes.
In future, address design standards for hillside homes, as well as the shade impact of new
2-story homes on the adjacent homes to the north.
******************************************************
Background:
Item 7-F 10/22/19
4 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
Some of the homes built recently in Sunset Park under the existing zoning ordinance (61% lot
coverage) seem out-of-scale with lot size and adjacent homes, diminish privacy, block the light
of neighboring homes and are, in some cases, repetitive in style and character.
Some of the homes with ADUs (auxiliary dwelling units, or “granny flats”) built under the
Interim Zoning Ordinance (50% lot coverage) still seem to demonstrate extensive massing,
minimize backyard green space, and negatively impact neighboring homes.
According to the Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance -- https://tinyurl.com/y26b9z65 -- Page 47 of
602 online -- 9.07.010-- The purposes of the “Single-Unit Residential” District include:
-- Preserve and protect the existing character and state of the City’s different residential
neighborhoods and the quality of life of City residents….
-- Ensure adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling….
-- Ensure that the scale and design of new development and alterations to existing
structures are consistent with the scale, mass, and character of the existing residential
neighborhood….
-- Promote the rehabilitation and long-term maintenance of existing structures.
Online questionnaire: A survey was sent out last fall to three of the single family R1
neighborhoods (North of Montana, Northeast Neighbors, and Sunset Park), and a large majority
of the more than 550 respondents expressed these same concerns and supported a change in the
existing R1 ordinance.
FOSP member comments: Some of the comments on FOSP membership forms echo these
concerns:
Big box houses; Corporate housing in Sunset Park; Density; Developer spec houses!
Development that seems driven by ideology more than by reality; Development of McMansions
everywhere; Excessive lot coverage; Huge houses being built; Increasing amount of excess
height & footprint in housing construction; Keeping housing affordable for “normal” people, not
investors, flippers, foreign investors with no intention of living here; Land use / large houses;
Losing old homes to McMansions; McMansion homes; McMansions; McMansions and loss of
character; McMansions in our neighborhood built on spec; Mega mansions; Mini-mansions
going in; Overbuild on lots; Overbuilding; Oversized houses and buildings; Oversized mega-
mansions encroaching; Sameness of homes; Unbridled residential and commercial development;
Two-story tract homes in Sunset Park; Ugly box-shaped flat-roof new homes; Ugly giant home
rebuilds!
Item 7-F 10/22/19
5 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
Lot coverage calculations:
6,000 sq ft lot 7,500 sq ft lot 9,000 sq ft lot
61% -- Current ordinance 3,660 sq ft house --- 4,575 sq ft house ---- 5,490 sq ft house
50% – IZO 3,000 sq ft house ---- 3,750 sq ft house ---- 4,500 sq ft house
3,850 w/ 850sf ADU 4,600 w/ 850sf ADU 5,350 w/ 850sf ADU
4,000 w/ 1,000sf ADU 4,750 w/ 1,000sf ADU 5,500 w/ 1,000sf ADU
45% lot coverage 2,700 sq ft house ---- 3,375 sq ft house ---- 4,050 sq ft house
3,550 w/ 850sf ADU 4,225 w/ 850sf ADU 4,900 w/ 850sf ADU
3,700 w/ 1,000sf ADU 4,375 w/ 1,000sf ADU 5,050 w/ 1,000sf ADU
*************************************************************************************
Online questionnaire:
In the Fall of 2017, three neighborhood associations (NOMA, Friends of Sunset Park, and
Northeast Neighbors) worked together to develop a method to measure the concerns of residents
about the building of new homes in R –1 (single family home) neighborhoods in Santa Monica.
The questionnaire was emailed to all Sunset Park residents on the FOSP group email list.
554 residents from the three neighborhoods responded to an anonymous questionnaire between
September 15 and November, 2017. (242 of the responses were from Sunset Park residents.)
Question 1. I think the new construction is too large in proportion to the neighboring
homes. 73% agreed.
Question 2. I think the new construction is too tall in proportion to the neighboring
homes. 66% agreed.
Question 4. I think the new construction may intrude on neighbor’s access to
sunlight. 75% agreed.
Question 5. I think the new construction may interfere with sea breezes. 60% agreed.
Question 6. I think the new construction may result in a loss of the adjoining property’s
privacy due to the new construction’s height, balconies, and decks. 80% agreed.
Question 7. The loss of trees and green scape from new construction concerns me.
Item 7-F 10/22/19
6 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
77% agreed.
Question 8. The reduction in front-and side-yard setbacks from porches and over hangs
concerns me. 76% agreed.
Question 13. I favor the use of incentives or disincentives (such as fee waivers, tax breaks,
higher fees, etc.) to encourage rehabilitation rather than demolition of older-single family
homes. 68% agreed.
Item 7-F 10/22/19
7 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
9HUQLFH+DQNLQV
)URP %ULDQ:HLWPDQ EULDQ#VWFTVWFRP!
6HQW 7KXUVGD\2FWREHU $0
7R FRXQFLOPWJLWHPV
&F -RKQ6NLQQHU
6XEMHFW &LW\RI605XSGDWH
dŽ͗^ĂŶƚĂDŽŶŝĐĂŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůͬŝƚLJWůĂŶŶŝŶŐKĨĨŝĐĞͮĐŽƵŶĐŝůŵƚŐŝƚĞŵƐΛƐŵŐŽǀ͘ŶĞƚ
&ƌŽŵ͗ƌŝĂŶΘŵLJtĞŝƚŵĂŶ
ZĞ͗ZϭhƉĚĂƚĞ
tĞĂƌĞƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJŽƉƉŽƐĞĚƚŽƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƚŝŶŐƚǁŽͲƐƚŽƌLJƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽŵĞƐŝnjĞƚŽϰϱйŽĨůŽƚ
ĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞĂŶĚĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƌĞĚƵĐŝŶŐĂƐĞĐŽŶĚƐƚŽƌLJƚŽŽŶůLJϮϮ͘ϱй͘dŚŝƐŝŵƉŽƐĞƐǁĂLJƚŽŽĚƌĂŵĂƚŝĐŽĨĂƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶ
ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůϲϭйŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞĂŶĚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƚŚĞǀŝĞǁŽĨŵŽƐƚŚŽŵĞŽǁŶĞƌƐ͘
ϭͲdŚŝƐǁŝůůŚĂǀĞĂƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶůĂŶĚǀĂůƵĞƐ͘ϯϱйƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶŝŶƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚĂŐĞ;ϰϬйĨŽƌ
ƚŚŽƐĞǁŝƚŚĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚŐĂƌĂŐĞͿŝƐĞdžƚƌĞŵĞ͘
ϮͲdŚĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚƐƚŽƌLJǁŝůůŚĂǀĞĂĚƌĂŵĂƚŝĐŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶ
ĞůŝŵŝŶĂƚŝŶŐƚŚĞ͞ďŽdžĞƐ͟ƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶďƵŝůƚŝŶƚŚĞƉĂƐƚĂŶĚŽĨĨĞŶĚĞĚƐŽŵĞŚŽŵĞŽǁŶĞƌƐ͘dŚĂƚŝƐĂ
ƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞĂŶĚŐŽŽĚĐŚĂŶŐĞ͕ďƵƚŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚŝŶŐKd,ƚŚŽƐĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƐĞƚͲďĂĐŬƐĂŶĚƚŚĞƐƋƵĂƌĞ
ĨŽŽƚůŝŵŝƚĂƚŝŽŶŝƐŽǀĞƌŬŝůů͘dŚŝƐǁŝůůƉĞŶĂůŝnjĞƚŚŽƐĞǁŝƚŚŵŽĚĞƐƚƚǁŽͲƐƚŽƌLJŚŽŵĞƐǁŚŽƐĞĨĂŵŝůLJŝƐ
ĞdžƉĂŶĚŝŶŐŽƌǁĂŶƚƚŽĐŽƌƌĞĐƚĂĨůŽŽƌͲƉůĂŶĨůĂǁƐƵĐŚĂƐďĞĚƌŽŽŵƐŽŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚůĞǀĞůƐ͘
ϯͲ,ŽŵĞŽǁŶĞƌƐƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚďĞĨŽƌĐĞĚƚŽďƵŝůĚĂŶhƚŽŵĂŬĞƵƉĨŽƌƚŚĂƚƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚĂŐĞƚŚĞLJ
ŵĂLJŶĞĞĚŝĨŝƚŝƐŽƵƚƐŝĚĞŽĨǁŚĂƚƚŚĞŝƌĨĂŵŝůLJŶĞĞĚƐĂƌĞ͘ŵŽƌĞƵƐĞƌͲĨƌŝĞŶĚůLJƉůĂŶƐŚŽƵůĚďĞƉƵƚŝŶ
ƉůĂĐĞ͘
ϰͲtĞůŝǀĞŝŶŽŶĞŽĨƚŚĞŵŽƐƚďĞĂƵƚŝĨƵůůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶƚŚĞǁŽƌůĚĂŶĚǁĞƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĂĚǀŽĐĂƚŝŶŐŵŽƌĞ
LJĂƌĚƐƉĂĐĞ͕ŶŽƚůĞƐƐ͘/ŶĐĞŶƚŝǀŝnjŝŶŐůĂƌŐĞƌůŽƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞĨŽƌƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽŵĞƐ͕ŽŶƚŽƉŽĨƉƵƐŚŝŶŐĨŽƌ
h͛Ɛ͕ĨƵƌƚŚĞƌĞĂƚƐŝŶƚŽŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘^ŽŵĞĐŽƵůĚĂƌŐƵĞƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚůŽŽŬǁŽƌƐĞƚŚĂŶŚŽŵĞƐǁŝƚŚ
ϲϭйůŽƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ͘
ϱͲzŽƵĂƌĞŐŽŝŶŐƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞĂƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚŐĂƉďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞ͞ŚĂǀĞƐ͕͟ƚŚŽƐĞǁŝƚŚϲϭйůŽƚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ
ĂŶĚĂďŝůŝƚLJƚŽďƵŝůĚĂƚǁŽͲƐƚŽƌLJhĂŶĚƚŚĞ͞ŚĂǀĞŶŽƚƐ͟ǁŚŽĨĂůůŝŶƚŽƚŚĞŶĞǁĐĂƚĞŐŽƌLJ͘
ϲͲtĞũƵƐƚĨŽƵŶĚŽƵƚĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůŽĨƚŚŝƐŵĂũŽƌŶĞǁŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞƉĂƐƐŝŶŐLJĞƚŚĞĂƌĚŝƚŚĂƐ
ďĞĞŶĚŝƐĐƵƐƐĞĚĨŽƌŽǀĞƌĂLJĞĂƌ͍͊,ŽǁŵĂŶLJŽƚŚĞƌŚŽŵĞŽǁŶĞƌƐĂƌĞŝŶƚŚĞƐĂŵĞďŽĂƚĂŶĚŚĂǀĞŶŽƚ
ďĞĞŶĂďůĞƚŽǀŽŝĐĞƚŚĞŝƌŽƉŝŶŝŽŶƐ͍ƋƵŝĐŬƐĐĂŶŽĨůŽĐĂůŶĞǁƐƉƵďůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞŝƐǀĞƌLJůŝƚƚůĞ͕ŝĨ
ĂŶLJƚĂůŬĂďŽƵƚƚŚŝƐ͘
ϳͲ/ĨŝŶƉƵƚĨƌŽŵƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞƐĂƚ͞ŽƉĞŶŚŽƵƐĞ͟ĞǀĞŶƚƐ;ǁŚŝĐŚǁĞĚŝĚŶ͛ƚĞǀĞŶŬŶŽǁĂďŽƵƚͿǁĂƐ
ĂƌŽƵŶĚϱϱй͕ǁŚLJƉƵƐŚĨŽƌϰϱй͍
&ŽƌƚŚĞƌĞĂƐŽŶƐƐƚĂƚĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͕ǁĞ^dZKE'>zŽƉƉŽƐĞƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚZͲϭhƉĚĂƚĞĂŶĚŚŽƉĞĂŵŽƌĞ
ƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚͬĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚ͘
Item 7-F 10/22/19
8 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
dŚĂŶŬzŽƵ͕
ƌŝĂŶΘŵLJtĞŝƚŵĂŶ
ϮϭϬϮϯƌĚ^ƚ͕^ĂŶƚĂDŽŶŝĐĂ͕ϵϬϰϬϮ
Item 7-F 10/22/19
9 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Eric Shepnick <ers68ford@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, October 18, 2019 9:29 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:John Skinner
Subject:R1 Update
To whom it may concern ‐
Since we are unable to attend the upcoming meeting, we wanted to email our opinion that the proposed changes are
too restrictive and feel that there should be further review and input taken from home owners before deciding what is
best for our neighborhoods. While some of the recent spec homes built by developers are oversized, there should be
considerations given to the overall size of a home vs just using a percentage of lot size. We also feel that separate
allowances and permissions should be provided for actual residents to add to their homes or to rebuild on their
properties if they actually are going to be living in them and have lived in their home continuously for 2 years.
The over development of Santa Monica has not come from its citizens building or modifying their residences but from
the city council’s allowing developers to change our city and streets for their own benefit.
Sincerely
Eric Shepnick
Item 7-F 10/22/19
10 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Henry Borenstein <henryb314@roadrunner.com>
Sent:Saturday, October 19, 2019 9:06 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:john.skinner@compass.com
Subject:Concern about Home Size Reduction Vote/Ordinance
I am a long time Santa Monica resident, with a home north of Montana on a 7500 sq foot lot.
I am VERY concerned about the proposed restrictions, beyond the current policies in place which are already fairly
restrictive, on home sizes that can be built/remodeled in our community.
I believe that this kind of restrictive regulation will have a very negative impact on the community overall, but
specifically on the home values in Santa Monica, since new buyers OR families that choose to remodel or enlarge their
current homes will be motivated to move out of our great city OR choose to never move here at all.
This type of economic impact and personal impact might be viewed as a good thing by keeping our city from thriving
both socially and economically, (i.e. keeping it small and non affluent), but I strongly believe that overall it will cause
irreparable damage to all of us in the long term.
Please do your best to make sure this proposal is NOT approved during the October 22nd meeting of the City Council.
Henry Borenstein
310-451-4143 private & voicemail
310-451-4142 home & family voicemail
310-633-4673 cell with voicemail
henryb314@roadrunner.com or
henry.borenstein.1973@anderson.ucla.edu
Item 7-F 10/22/19
11 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Peter Connolly <petermuddconnolly@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, October 19, 2019 10:45 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:R1 Zoning
Hello. In light of the staff's report on R1 zoning, I want to raise a couple concerns. I watched the entire planning
commission meeting (on recording) and have serious issues with the process involved here. Most significantly:
I'd like to emphasize to the Council that the planning commission unilaterally proposed a 45% two story
coverage limitation, even though the technical working group recommended "somewhere between 50% and
61%", and the community consensus was found to be 55%. As a reminder, the current R1 coverage limit is
61% and the IZO is 50%.
The decision to incentivize single‐story construction was not properly considered by the staff, technical working
group, or the community. This approach was proposed by a single individual that spoke at the planning
commission meeting (which was held after all community workshops and technical working group meetings
had wrapped up and after the staff had issued its preliminary report). The planning commission latched onto
the idea in that meeting without any process or thoughtful consideration. For example, one resounding
comment from the community was the need to find a way to incentive people to retain trees. This objective
is diametrically opposed to single story construction (which by its nature has more ground/surface level
coverage). The staff, community and TWG should have had the chance to balance the need to preserve green
space and trees (and other considerations) against the desire to have incentives for single story
development. There was no such opportunity.
I respectfully request that the Council adhere closer to what the public had a chance to review (i.e., single/two story
construction is the same aggregate coverage limit set somewhere between 50% and 61%). In the alternative, additional
time for community input and thoughtful staff review of the planning commission's directives would be quite
appropriate.
Sincerely,
Peter Connolly
(310) 430‐2860
Item 7-F 10/22/19
12 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Danny Guggenheim <dannyandjenna@verizon.net>
Sent:Saturday, October 19, 2019 10:13 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject:R1 Ordinance - Oct 22 Agenda Item 7F
Dear Council Members,
I have lived in a 1,450 sq ft one‐story house that was built in 1940 on a 6,000 sq ft lot in Sunset Park for 13
years, and have 2 kids in SMMUSD. There are two‐story houses on both sides of our house, and at least one‐
third of our block has two‐story houses, with another one added every once in a while. That is typical of our
neighborhood, and not a threat to its character; on the contrary, the neighborhood has a history of changing
with the times. And given the high cost of land in Santa Monica over the last several decades, it was inevitable
that residents would want to improve more of their parcels with second stories over time.
However, I love our neighborhood, and so I fully support the concept of incentivizing remodels rather than
new construction (and myself have chosen to remodel rather than tear down and rebuild). But it is not
accurate to say that one‐story houses define the character of the neighborhood and two‐story houses are
inconsistent so should be discouraged. To that end, the whole notion of limiting parcel coverage in order to
preserve the character of the neighborhood seems misguided because the neighborhood has already evolved
to incorporate two‐story houses with a 61% parcel coverage. And such notion seems to ignore that (a) set
backs, step backs, height limitations and other architectural guidelines have a much greater visual impact from
the street than parcel coverage so can be much more helpful to addressing concerns about aesthetics, and (b)
restrictions via set backs, step backs, height limitations and architectural guidelines are less burdensome for
residents and have fewer negative repercussions than restrictions on parcel coverage.
In particular, I am very concerned that the Planning Commission has recommended a further reduction in R1
parcel coverage for Sunset Park, from 50% to 45%, despite the technical working group having suggested 50‐
61%, the community open houses having suggesting 55%, staff having suggested 50%, and the IZO having
been for 50% (and not having been in effect for long enough to study its impact, other than to frustrate
residents, like myself, who had been wanting to remodel but missed the February 2018 cutoff).
These reductions in parcel coverage are a really big deal because they directly impair the value and desirability
of certain homes and lots, and eventually entire neighborhoods, and for most people their home is their
biggest investment. Many residents will lose hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not much more) of actual or
potential lot value as a result of reducing parcel coverage below 61%. What?! That cannot be the right
solution to generic concerns about changing neighborhoods, especially not when the technical working
committee (a group that was assembled for its expertise) is emphasizing setback, step backs, height
limitations and architectural guidelines as a more effective means of controlling the character of a
neighborhood. It also feels very unfair to lose that lot value and utility merely to appease a small
constituency, especially when some of the decision makers live in homes in SM that are larger than the limits
they are now proposing for everyone else (that seems like a conflict of interest).
In addition, limiting parcel coverage is a terribly inefficient means of preserving the neighborhood, relative to
utilizing set backs, step backs, height limitations and other architectural guidelines to control the aesthetic
Item 7-F 10/22/19
13 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
2
from the street, because there are several major, negative repercussions that are unique to limiting parcel
coverage:
(i) reducing square footage will materially reduce the residential tax base over time on a relative
basis, which will both impair city services (including SMMUSD) and also lead to additional decline in
property value for residents;
(ii) such a drastic reduction in parcel coverage below 61% will result in an unfair permanent
distinction, both in terms of lot value and utility, between residents who have previously improved
their lots in excess of the new standards and those who haven’t; and
(iii) it seems punitive that if residents who previously improved their lots in excess of the new
standards suffer a casualty then they can only rebuild of a portion of what was lost (which could be
a lot of people in the event of a major earthquake), but it would be even more unfair to let such
residents rebuild to the prior dimensions while others residents are precluded from doing so.
There are also other problems with the proposal:
(i) regarding incentivizing one‐story expansions with a higher parcel coverage, it is unrealistic to
think that someone with an older, one‐story home that has 25% parcel coverage on a 6000 sq ft
lot (much of Sunset Park), is going to spend huge sums of money on a one‐story addition,
because the layout of most of the older houses isn’t compatible with that kind of expansion (in
addition to setback issues), and because that would mean giving up precious yard space (along
those lines, it seems environmentally irresponsible to incentivize greater impervious
improvements rather than a second‐story addition that is subject to appropriate step backs);
(ii) regarding the argument that exempting basements mitigates the reduction in parcel coverage,
it should be noted that it is much more expensive to add a basement than to add the same
square footage on a first or second story, so a policy that will result in square footage being
moved from the first second stories to new basements over time will exacerbate the housing
costs crisis; and
(iii) regarding the argument that exempting ADUs mitigates the reduction in parcel coverage, this
seems to ignore that (a) multi‐generational households are as helpful as ADUs in alleviating the
housing crisis, (b) ADUs may be less desirable or useful than an additional integrated bedroom
and bathroom, and (c) ADUs can easily be manipulated to circumvent the parcel coverage
limitations (ie, to just increase primary living area rather than create additional housing units
for rent), so rather than exempting ADUs, the parcel coverage limitation should just be higher
and include any ADUs (other benefits can be provided to incentivize people whose ADUs are
actually creating additional housing units for rent).
Lastly, I want to express my support for the proposals to (a) eliminate the concept of a remodel triggering
additional parking requirements and (b) eliminate the requirement for parking to be located in the rear half of
the parcel in an enclosed garage. I hope this will mean that existing garages can be eliminated and/or
repurposed so that residents can take advantage of such valuable space, and not just be applicable to new
projects.
Thank you for your consideration.
Danny Guggenheim
Homeowner in Sunset Park
Item 7-F 10/22/19
14 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Diane Sabatini <dianesabatini@mac.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 20, 2019 10:42 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:10/22/19 agenda item 7-F -- R1 update
Dear Council —
I am a 15 year resident of Sunset Park. I bought an existing 1946 home and refurbished it in 2005 with
the intention of maintaining balance, scope and scale within the neighborhood. I am committed to
the neighborhood.
Developers buying and building spec is destroying the very appeal of the neighborhood. I realize that
development is natural to improvement and some of the homes suffer serious disrepair.
There should be revised zoning rules to address out-of-scale construction with the intention of
preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Diane Sabatini
Homeowner
1801 Pier Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7-F 10/22/19
15 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Diane Sabatini <dianesabatini@mac.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 20, 2019 10:42 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:10/22/19 agenda item 7-F -- R1 update
Dear Council —
I am a 15 year resident of Sunset Park. I bought an existing 1946 home and refurbished it in 2005 with
the intention of maintaining balance, scope and scale within the neighborhood. I am committed to
the neighborhood.
Developers buying and building spec is destroying the very appeal of the neighborhood. I realize that
development is natural to improvement and some of the homes suffer serious disrepair.
There should be revised zoning rules to address out-of-scale construction with the intention of
preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Diane Sabatini
Homeowner
1801 Pier Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7-F 10/22/19
16 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Lauren de la Fuente <lauren@pearlstreetmarketing.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 20, 2019 6:03 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:10/22/19 item 7F - R1 (Single-Unit Residential) Development Standards Update
October 20, 2019
To: City Council
From: Lauren de la Fuente and I vote!
RE: 10/22/19 item 7F ‐ R1 (Single‐Unit Residential) Development Standards Update
I vote and I support the following regarding the item 7F about R1 Development.
1) Maximum Parcel Coverage
a) 45% aggregate for new 2‐story homes
b) 50% for new one‐story homes
c) 55% for existing one‐story homes with one‐story additions
2) Maximum Height:
a) 28 feet for pitched roofs
b) 23 feet for flat roofs
3) Increased front and side upper story stepbacks
*******************************************************************************
My Rationale:
A) Reduce maximum lot coverage for 2 ‐story homes from the IZO 50% limit to 45% to balance the impact of 850 sq
ft ADUs, or 1,000 sq ft ADUs if they’re more than one bedroom (per AB 881), an increase from the previous city
650 and 800 sq ft maximums.
B) Maintain 50% maximum lot coverage for one‐story homes.
C) Establish 55% for existing one‐story homes with one‐story additions as an incentive for homeowners to remodel
rather than demolish and replace their homes.
D) Maintain the 28 foot maximum height for pitched roofs.
E) Reduce the height for flat roofs to 23 feet (the same side‐wall height as 28‐foot pitched roof homes).
F) Increase front and side upper‐story stepbacks to reduce massing and impact on neighboring homes.
In future, address design standards for hillside homes, as well as the shade impact of new 2‐story homes on the adjacent
homes to the north.
******************************************************
BTW‐don’t let our community look like Playa Vista or an Irvine company development. We are Santa Monica. We are all
unique and different and the homes are starting to look too big and the same.
Item 7-F 10/22/19
17 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
2
Some of the homes built recently in Sunset Park under the existing zoning ordinance (61% lot coverage) seem out‐of‐
scale with lot size and adjacent homes, diminish privacy, block the light of neighboring homes and are, in some cases,
repetitive in style and character.
Some of the homes with ADUs (auxiliary dwelling units, or “granny flats”) built under the Interim Zoning Ordinance (50%
lot coverage) still seem to demonstrate extensive massing, minimize backyard green space, and negatively impact
neighboring homes.
According to the Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance ‐‐ https://tinyurl.com/y26b9z65 ‐‐ Page 47 of 602 online ‐‐ 9.07.010‐‐
The purposes of the “Single‐Unit Residential” District include:
‐‐ Preserve and protect the existing character and state of the City’s different residential neighborhoods and the quality
of life of City residents….
‐‐ Ensure adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling….
‐‐ Ensure that the scale and design of new development and alterations to existing structures are consistent with the
scale, mass, and character of the existing residential neighborhood….
‐‐ Promote the rehabilitation and long‐term maintenance of existing structures.
Lauren de la Fuente
2110 Pearl Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Principal, Pearl Street Marketing
310.283.8488
Item 7-F 10/22/19
18 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:philip fitzgerald <philip.fitzgerald@outlook.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 20, 2019 6:32 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:R-1 update
Dear city council,
I would like to attend Tuesday's hearing in person, but unfortunately I am traveling for work. I cannot express how
vehemently opposed I am to any proposed changing in the city's ordinances as they relate to residential size and lot
utilization. The proposed reduction will impact the value of existing homes (where land value, driven by usage rights
among other factors, comprises the most meaningful portion of the investment) and will separate home values by
"haves" (those that already maxed out the lot's development potential) and "have‐nots" (those that will have future
development potential limited).
The simple truth is, this type of initiative is driven by nothing more than a "NIMBY" mentality and has nothing to do with
curbing affordability or improving the quality of life in Santa Monica.
Perhaps spend more time and effort addressing the problems of homelessness and vagrancy?
Item 7-F 10/22/19
19 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Celia Carroll <ccarr10186@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 20, 2019 9:47 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:10/22/19 agenda item 7-F -- R1 update
Regarding 10/22/19 agenda item 7-F -- R1 update”
I support Friends of Sunset Park positions to regain green space, preserve trees and bring housing heights into better harmony with the
neighborhood. So many large shade trees are destroyed to build larger houses, and there is nothing to attract butterflies, lizards and birds. We
have lost the three largest, healthy specimen trees in the last 5 years on the block of 30th St on which we live.
I am a lifelong birdwatcher and have watched a steep decline in numbers and species in the 43 years we have lived in our Sunset Park home.
There is little foraging space for our Southern California birds on our small lots on which are sited oversized buildings. Our environment is not
healthy, as we face climate disruption: we can do more!
Sincerely
Celia Carroll
2311 30th St.
Santa Monica, CA. 90405
Item 7-F 10/22/19
20 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Eoin Gubbins <egubbins@cgs3.com>
Sent:Monday, October 21, 2019 8:12 AM
To:Council Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems; David Martin; Jing Yeo; Tony Kim; Ross Fehrman
Subject:Agenda Item 7-F (10.22.19): Ordinance to Amend the Text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance Related to
R1 (Single-Unit Residential) Development Standards
Attachments:Brief List of What Appear to be Single Family Homes (Predominantly Single-Family Homes) on R-2
Lots.pdf; LA Times - Ridgecrest's Resilient Housing Stock.pdf; KPBS Article - Nearly 40% of Adult
Children Living At Home.pdf
Dear Councilmembers:
I write as a father of three fourth generation Santa Monicans, husband, 12‐year resident, homeowner and
immigrant. And as someone who has lived in Wilmont (approx. 3 years), North East Neighborhood (approx. 2 years) and
Sunset Park (approx. 7 years). In addition, my in‐laws live North of Montana and I’m dropping my girls at their house or
picking‐up from their house a couple of times per week.
I was disappointed by the Planning Commission’s 4‐2 vote at its August 7th meeting to recommend the 45% parcel
coverage limitation. (I note that no architect or design professional was part of the majority at that meeting. Mario
Fonda Bonardi was absent.)
The recommended 45% parcel coverage limitation is (i) lower than the interim ordinance parcel coverage limitation
intended as a temporary stopgap measure to allow the City to evaluate issues more closely, (ii) outside the parameters
recommended by the technical working group (“it should be somewhere between 61% and 50%”), (iii) significantly
below the community open house feedback (“with average parcel coverage preference being approximately 55%”), and
(iv) lower than the Planning Commission’s direction at its June 19th meeting. In addition, a 45% parcel coverage
limitation is at odds with our neighbors (whose parcel coverage limitations I understand to be 55% in Venice, 55% in Mar
Vista and 65% in the Palisades). Only Brentwood is comparable – but there, I gather that a significant portion of a
garage is not counted and measurements are taken from the interior making additional square footage available than
would be the case in Santa Monica.
REQUEST: I encourage you to (ii) take the community input received to heart and set a uniform parcel coverage
limitation of 55% (regardless of whether the home is one or two stories), and (ii) very carefully examine the proposed
upper story stepbacks and strongly consider scaling them back. I would also encourage you to consider tweaking the
measurement method and perhaps exempting some portion of a garage from parcel coverage.
My principal issue is with the apparent deleterious neighborhood impacts of building a second story (including the very
restrictive parcel coverage limitation which only kicks‐in if a single square foot is constructed above the first floor). As
I’ve expressed previously, two‐story homes are now the norm in many streets (I would posit on almost all streets North
of Montana and a significant number of streets in Sunset Park) and thus are part and parcel of the currently existing
character of the neighborhood and are almost a necessity for large families. A 50% or 55% parcel coverage for a one‐
story home is not a workable solution for most families as it results in a very small backyard which is almost unusable.
The reasons for my request are many fold and expressed further below:
1. Unintended Consequences. Based on what I’ve observed, it appears the R‐1 standards have been considered in
a vacuum with broader/macro considerations and knock‐on effects essentially absent from the dialogue. While a
study of single‐family home massing and design has been worthwhile, I think what are likely to be significant
Item 7-F 10/22/19
21 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
2
knock‐on impacts also merit consideration (particularly in light of the scale of the Planning Commission’s
recommended parcel coverage reduction when coupled with aggressive upper story stepback requirements).
1.1 Shifting Single‐Family Development Pressures to the Multi‐Family Neighborhoods Potentially
Putting Rent‐Control Units at Risk. With such a drastic reduction in parcel coverage and
development densities, it appears the trend whereby single‐family residences occupy R‐2 zoned
lots will increase. R‐2 zoned lots (particularly those on quiet streets that are in close proximity to
existing R‐1 neighborhoods as well as the Pico Neighborhood) would appear to be particularly
vulnerable. I did some quick on‐line searches and see that the attached homes which appear to
be single‐family residences (or at least predominantly single‐family in nature with perhaps an
accessory dwelling unit or two in the rear) are recent examples of this trend. The number of
single‐family homes (or what are effectively single‐family homes) on R‐2 lots seems likely to
increase dramatically should you decide to move ahead with the adoption of the proposals
recommended by the Planning Commission. While the LUCE speaks about preserving and
protecting the City’s neighborhoods, it does not call for effectively freezing the R‐1 neighborhood
in time to the detriment of the City’s multi‐family neighborhoods.
1.2 Encouraging Residents to Reside in Unsafe Conditions. It appears unwise to encourage and
incentivize the retention of existing homes. Many of the existing housing stock is decades beyond
what has traditionally been viewed as its useful life. Our home was built in 1946 and lacks many
of the safety features found in newer homes, including a modern fire life safety system, fire
sprinklers, seismic improvements, etc.
1.2.1 Earthquake Considerations. I have attached a Los Angeles Times article written
in the wake of the Ridgecrest earthquake (which coincidentally occurred between
the first and second Planning Commission meetings on the R‐1 standards). The
article states “[t]he Mojave Desert town [Ridgecrest] remained largely unscathed
because its building stock was relatively new and remarkably resilient. Many
homes are one or two stories, built in the 1980s. It lacks the lacks the kind of
structures that experts say are most vulnerable in a big quake – unreinforced
masonry, brittle concrete…and single‐family homes not bolted to their
foundations [emphasis added].” Our home and many of our neighbors have a
chimney made of brick that extends about 15 feet. I would assume that such a
brick structure would collapse in a 7.1 magnitude earthquake similar to that
experienced in Ridgecrest causing damage and loss of life. Our third daughter’s
crib used to be in our front room just adjacent to the chimney – we have since
moved her given concerns for her safety (among other reasons).
1.2.2 Hazardous Substances. Our home has lead‐based paint, mold, asbestos and
potentially other hazardous substances which have the potential to negatively
impact our family’s health and welfare. To incentivize families to remain in
homes with these issues, is to encourage continued exposure to such
substances. Thankfully, it appears that none of those substances are present to
such a level in our home that they would be considered life threatening (or at
least I hope not). But I do not think it is responsible government policy to actively
encourage residents to remain in homes that are contaminated with hazardous
substances whose use (for good reason) has been outlawed and is prohibited in
newly constructed homes.
1.3 Loss of Open Space. The preference for one‐story development does not take into account the
needs of young and growing families such as ours – simply put, a single‐story home is not a
workable solution for us. Ours is a substandard lot containing about 7,000 square feet. With a
50% parcel coverage, we would have a backyard (assuming the standard setbacks and no garage)
Item 7-F 10/22/19
22 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
3
of approximately 1,100 square feet (i.e., 22 feet deep and 50 foot wide). This is the width of a
small street and not useable for much and certainly not an ideal or preferable playground for
three rambunctious children. For a City accused of constantly being “park poor” and which places
a strong emphasis on wellbeing, it seems to not make good sense to encourage families to have
very small yards. For most, two stories are the only feasible option considering the strong desire
to maximize the size and usability of the backyard for children.
1.4 Loss of Architectural Creativity/Distinctive Design. A 45% parcel limitation and significant
regulations governing stepbacks are likely to force families to adopt cookie‐cutter designs in the
R‐1 neighborhood as no room is left for flexibility, creativity or individuality. I have family and
friends that come from all over the world given that I’ve dozens of cousins and grew‐up in
Ireland. My in‐laws live North of Montana and will often host parties at their house and visits to
our home in Sunset Park are generally mandatory. Most visitors remark that the neighborhoods
are so attractive because of the variety of housing designs, styles and types. From Spanish, Cape
Codd, Traditional, Tudor, French to Modern. But with such tight development standards going
forward, I’m concerned that such differences won’t exist in the future and most new homes will
be of a very similar, size, design and shape. I realize that flexibility is built into the stepback
standards, but I’m concerned that this may not play out in a real world sense as architects and
design professionals could gravitate towards a uniform way of complying with the requirements
which eliminates the variety we’re so fortunate to enjoy today.
1.5 Lack of Consideration for Future Trends. I’m also concerned that future trends in homebuilding
may not be capable of being fully embraced given the restrictive nature of the proposed standards
and the fact that literally every inch will count. Sunset park includes a number of manufactured
or modular houses (see: https://www.protohomes.com/.) it’s unclear the extent to which such
homes can be modified to address the new standards.
2. Trust/Public Process. I’ve been following this process fairly closely since the start of this year and also took a look
back at the interim ordinance that was adopted on first reading in January of last year. My takeaway from the
City Council’s initial discussion of the R‐1 standards was that the Council wanted to put the “brakes” on R‐1
development and put temporary measures in place to significantly curtail it while an outreach process took place
to develop a more reasonable permanent set of standards. Many in the community have been giving the City the
“benefit of the doubt” with the assumption that the permanent standards would be more reasonable. Again, the
public process ran its course both via the technical working group and the community workshops – the community
landed on a 55% parcel coverage limitation and the technical group said somewhere between 50% and
61%. Participants in the workshop didn’t expect to have to show up at every Planning Commission or City Council
meeting. The community has rightfully been operating under the assumption that the eventual R‐1 development
standards would be more generous than the temporary standards contained in the interim ordinance. There will
be a possible erosion of public trust to do otherwise.
3. Multi‐Generational Households. According to the attached KPBS article and per its quotation of U.S. Census
Bureau data, roughly 37% of Californians age 18 to 34 live with their parents. This trend would seem to mean that
those of us who are building a new home for our family need to plan for the long term. Unlike in the 1940s, 50s,
60s and even 70s, homes in California are no longer easily affordable and plentiful. On our street and the adjacent
street, I’m aware of several situations where adult children reside with a parent (and in some cases, the
grandchildren too). Unless there’s a radical change in State and local housing policy, this trend appears destined
to continue and possibly accelerate.
4. The Character of Our Neighborhoods has Changed. The Pre‐IZO standards have been in place for approximately
20 years. And before that, I gather the R‐1 standards were even more generous. Thus, our neighborhoods are
not stuck in time at the point they were originally developed. Rather, they have evolved and changed. Just in our
portion of Sunset Park, there are several streets where the majority of homes are now two story and not single‐
Item 7-F 10/22/19
23 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
4
story homes as was the case originally. If we're going to insist on tying the standards to the character of our
neighborhoods, we should look at the current built environment and not just the footprint of original homes.
5. Against State Law Goals. As I believe you are all aware, the State (in an attempt to address the housing crises) has
passed a series of laws requiring greater density and streamlining of development on R‐1 zoned lots. I gather that
most of these bills have received widespread support. At a time when the State has identified R‐1 zoned lots as
part of the solution to the housing crises, it’s regrettable that the City has decided to try to reduce the amount
that can be built on R‐1 zoned lots.
FAMILY‐FRIENDLY SOLUTIONS: In addition to all of the above and in speaking with residents both at the workshops and
since, I understand that the big concern is not local families trying to accommodate young children or elderly parents (or
both). But instead I gather residents have been upset by the pace of change triggered by folks interested in building
large, cheap‐looking houses for a quick profit and who have no long‐term interest in the community. In fact, one
woman at the workshop I attended stood up and said families should be able to build whatever they want, but those in
it for a quick profit should not.
If the Council decides that much lower development standards than those which existed prior to the adoption of the IZO
must be made permanent, I would recommend that carve‐outs or exceptions be included to accommodate
families/owner‐occupied properties. There would appear there are a number of ways to favor owner‐occupiers or those
not motivated by a quick profit. Examples could include the following pursuant to which additional parcel
coverage/relief from stepbacks could be provided: (a) imposition of an owner‐occupancy requirement satisfied by
means of a signed affidavit and other evidence (similar to the 3‐unit or less owner‐occupancy requirement under the
City’s Rent Control Law), (b) a more streamlined modification/reasonable accommodation process which would delay
the development process and thus not work for home flippers but perhaps allow an approval process generally
considered automatic/ministerial absent extraordinary findings to the contrary, (c) compliance with an informal
community outreach requirement (e.g., a requirement that the homeowner host a community meeting for those on
their block to review plans and answer questions) – while input from neighbors might not necessarily be required to be
addressed it might help bring the community together, allow the homeowner to take feedback received on board and
perhaps ultimately make for a better house, or (d) require the consent of the immediately adjacent property owner for
density above a certain threshold (similar to the situation with hedge height modifications under the City’s Municipal
Code). Again, these are just ideas but I understand in the past that the City Council has expressed an interest in giving
families/owner‐occupiers relief that might not be afforded to those who have never occupied the present home and
have no intention of occupying the home under construction. As above, there is precedent in the City for some of the
measures identified above. And in case of additional density for owner occupiers, I believe the City of Newport Beach at
one point imposed an owner‐occupancy requirement for those seeking additional development potential to construct
an accessory dwelling unit.
I look forward to your discussion tomorrow night. If you have any questions for me in the meantime, please don’t
hesitate to contact me.
Best,
Eoin
1702 Pine Street, Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 625 7427
Item 7-F 10/22/19
24 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:pampaspup@aol.com
Sent:Monday, October 21, 2019 11:16 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Single-Unit (R-1) zoning district development standards
Dear City Council Members:
As a longtime resident (27 years) of the "North of Montana" area of the city, I am writing you to
encourage you to adopt the modified development standards which the Planning Commission recommended in its August
7 Planning Commission Staff Report.
I will not be able to attend the meeting on Oct. 22 at the start and don't know if I'll be able to
attend at all. But I feel that the scale of what is being built in the neighborhood is too large. Little by little, all or certainly
most trees that are on private property in this neighborhood are being wiped out. I have seen it over and over again with
my own eyes. The proposed modified development standards still would allow for houses that are plenty large enough.
Sincerely yours,
Diego Sanchez-Elía
432 15th St.
Santa Monica, CA 90402-2232
Item 7-F 10/22/19
25 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Phillip Tate <philliptate@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 21, 2019 11:59 AM
To:Council Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems; David Martin; Jing Yeo; Tony Kim; Ross Fehrman
Subject:Agenda Item 7-F (10.22.19): Ordinance to Amend the Text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance Related to
R1 (Single-Unit Residential) Development Standards
Dear Councilmembers,
I am and have been a resident of Sunset Park since December of 2008. I am writing regarding the proposed R1
development standards that Limit lot coverage. In short, I would ask that you consider restoring the lot coverage limit to
55%, in line with the technical working group’s recommendations. It is already difficult enough to build new housing that
can accommodate inter generational needs in Santa Monica. A 45% lot coverage limit would make it nearly impossible.
I have pasted some additional points below originally drafted by a friend with similar concerns.
Thank you
Phillip Tate
3212 18th Street
The recommended 45% parcel coverage limitation is (i) lower than the interim
ordinance parcel coverage limitation intended as a temporary stopgap measure to allow
the City to evaluate issues more closely, (ii) outside the parameters recommended by
the technical working group (“it should be somewhere between 61% and 50%”), (iii)
significantly below the community open house feedback (“with average parcel coverage
preference being approximately 55%”), and (iv) lower than the Planning Commission’s
direction at its June 19th meeting. In addition, a 45% parcel coverage limitation is at
odds with our neighbors (whose parcel coverage limitations I understand to be 55% in
Venice, 55% in Mar Vista and 65% in the Palisades). Only Brentwood is comparable –
but there, I gather that a significant portion of a garage is not counted and
measurements are taken from the interior making additional square footage available
than would be the case in Santa Monica.
REQUEST: I encourage you to (ii) take the community input received to heart and set a
uniform parcel coverage limitation of 55% (regardless of whether the home is one or
two stories), and (ii) very carefully examine the proposed upper story stepbacks and
strongly consider scaling them back. I would also encourage you to consider tweaking
the measurement method and perhaps exempting some portion of a garage from parcel
coverage.
My principal issue is with the apparent deleterious neighborhood impacts of building a
second story (including the very restrictive parcel coverage limitation which only kicks‐in
if a single square foot is constructed above the first floor). As I’ve expressed previously,
two‐story homes are now the norm in many streets (I would posit on almost all streets
Item 7-F 10/22/19
26 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
2
North of Montana and a significant number of streets in Sunset Park) and thus are part
and parcel of the currently existing character of the neighborhood and are almost a
necessity for large families. A 50% or 55% parcel coverage for a one‐story home is not a
workable solution for most families as it results in a very small backyard which is almost
unusable.
The reasons for my request are many fold and expressed further below:
1. Unintended Consequences. Based on what I’ve observed, it appears the R‐1
standards have been considered in a vacuum with broader/macro considerations and
knock‐on effects essentially absent from the dialogue. While a study of single‐family
home massing and design has been worthwhile, I think what are likely to be significant
knock‐on impacts also merit consideration (particularly in light of the scale of the
Planning Commission’s recommended parcel coverage reduction when coupled with
aggressive upper story stepback requirements).
1.1 Shifting Single‐Family Development Pressures to the Multi‐Family
Neighborhoods Potentially Putting Rent‐Control Units at Risk. With such a drastic
reduction in parcel coverage and development densities, it appears the trend whereby
single‐family residences occupy R‐2 zoned lots will increase. R‐2 zoned lots (particularly
those on quiet streets that are in close proximity to existing R‐1 neighborhoods as well
as the Pico Neighborhood) would appear to be particularly vulnerable. I did some quick
on‐line searches and see that the attached homes which appear to be single‐family
residences (or at least predominantly single‐family in nature with perhaps an accessory
dwelling unit or two in the rear) are recent examples of this trend. The number of
single‐family homes (or what are effectively single‐family homes) on R‐2 lots seems
likely to increase dramatically should you decide to move ahead with the adoption of
the proposals recommended by the Planning Commission. While the LUCE speaks about
preserving and protecting the City’s neighborhoods, it does not call for effectively
freezing the R‐1 neighborhood in time to the detriment of the City’s multi‐family
neighborhoods.
1.2 Encouraging Residents to Reside in Unsafe Conditions. It appears unwise to
encourage and incentivize the retention of existing homes. Many of the existing
housing stock is decades beyond what has traditionally been viewed as its useful
life. Our home was built in 1946 and lacks many of the safety features found in newer
homes, including a modern fire life safety system, fire sprinklers, seismic improvements,
etc.
Item 7-F 10/22/19
27 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
3
1.2.1 Earthquake Considerations. I have attached a Los Angeles Times article
written in the wake of the Ridgecrest earthquake (which coincidentally occurred
between the first and second Planning Commission meetings on the R‐1 standards). The
article states “[t]he Mojave Desert town [Ridgecrest] remained largely unscathed
because its building stock was relatively new and remarkably resilient. Many homes are
one or two stories, built in the 1980s. It lacks the lacks the kind of structures that
experts say are most vulnerable in a big quake – unreinforced masonry, brittle
concrete…and single‐family homes not bolted to their foundations [emphasis
added].” Our home and many of our neighbors have a chimney made of brick that
extends about 15 feet. I would assume that such a brick structure would collapse in a
7.1 magnitude earthquake similar to that experienced in Ridgecrest causing damage and
loss of life. Our third daughter’s crib used to be in our front room just adjacent to the
chimney – we have since moved her given concerns for her safety (among other
reasons).
1.2.2 Hazardous Substances. Our home has lead‐based paint, mold, asbestos and
potentially other hazardous substances which have the potential to negatively impact
our family’s health and welfare. To incentivize families to remain in homes with these
issues, is to encourage continued exposure to such substances. Thankfully, it appears
that none of those substances are present to such a level in our home that they would
be considered life threatening (or at least I hope not). But I do not think it is responsible
government policy to actively encourage residents to remain in homes that are
contaminated with hazardous substances whose use (for good reason) has been
outlawed and is prohibited in newly constructed homes.
1.3 Loss of Open Space. The preference for one‐story development does not
take into account the needs of young and growing families such as ours – simply put, a
single‐story home is not a workable solution for us. Ours is a substandard lot containing
about 7,000 square feet. With a 50% parcel coverage, we would have a backyard
(assuming the standard setbacks and no garage) of approximately 1,100 square feet
(i.e., 22 feet deep and 50 foot wide). This is the width of a small street and not useable
for much and certainly not an ideal or preferable playground for three rambunctious
children. For a City accused of constantly being “park poor” and which places a strong
emphasis on wellbeing, it seems to not make good sense to encourage families to have
very small yards. For most, two stories are the only feasible option considering the
strong desire to maximize the size and usability of the backyard for children.
1.4 Loss of Architectural Creativity/Distinctive Design. A 45% parcel limitation
and significant regulations governing stepbacks are likely to force families to adopt
cookie‐cutter designs in the R‐1 neighborhood as no room is left for flexibility, creativity
or individuality. I have family and friends that come from all over the world given that
I’ve dozens of cousins and grew‐up in Ireland. My in‐laws live North of Montana and
will often host parties at their house and visits to our home in Sunset Park are generally
mandatory. Most visitors remark that the neighborhoods are so attractive because of
the variety of housing designs, styles and types. From Spanish, Cape Codd, Traditional,
Item 7-F 10/22/19
28 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
4
Tudor, French to Modern. But with such tight development standards going forward,
I’m concerned that such differences won’t exist in the future and most new homes will
be of a very similar, size, design and shape. I realize that flexibility is built into the
stepback standards, but I’m concerned that this may not play out in a real world sense
as architects and design professionals could gravitate towards a uniform way of
complying with the requirements which eliminates the variety we’re so fortunate to
enjoy today.
1.5 Lack of Consideration for Future Trends. I’m also concerned that future
trends in homebuilding may not be capable of being fully embraced given the restrictive
nature of the proposed standards and the fact that literally every inch will count. Sunset
park includes a number of manufactured or modular houses
(see: https://www.protohomes.com/.) it’s unclear the extent to which such homes can
be modified to address the new standards.
1. Trust/Public Process. I’ve been following this process fairly closely since the start of
this year and also took a look back at the interim ordinance that was adopted on first
reading in January of last year. My takeaway from the City Council’s initial discussion of
the R‐1 standards was that the Council wanted to put the “brakes” on R‐1 development
and put temporary measures in place to significantly curtail it while an outreach process
took place to develop a more reasonable permanent set of standards. Many in the
community have been giving the City the “benefit of the doubt” with the assumption
that the permanent standards would be more reasonable. Again, the public process ran
its course both via the technical working group and the community workshops – the
community landed on a 55% parcel coverage limitation and the technical group said
somewhere between 50% and 61%. Participants in the workshop didn’t expect to have
to show up at every Planning Commission or City Council meeting. The community has
rightfully been operating under the assumption that the eventual R‐1 development
standards would be more generous than the temporary standards contained in the
interim ordinance. There will be a possible erosion of public trust to do otherwise.
1. Multi‐Generational Households. According to the attached KPBS article and per its
quotation of U.S. Census Bureau data, roughly 37% of Californians age 18 to 34 live with
their parents. This trend would seem to mean that those of us who are building a new
home for our family need to plan for the long term. Unlike in the 1940s, 50s, 60s and
even 70s, homes in California are no longer easily affordable and plentiful. On our street
and the adjacent street, I’m aware of several situations where adult children reside with
a parent (and in some cases, the grandchildren too). Unless there’s a radical change in
State and local housing policy, this trend appears destined to continue and possibly
accelerate.
Item 7-F 10/22/19
29 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
5
1. The Character of Our Neighborhoods has Changed. The Pre‐IZO standards have been
in place for approximately 20 years. And before that, I gather the R‐1 standards were
even more generous. Thus, our neighborhoods are not stuck in time at the point they
were originally developed. Rather, they have evolved and changed. Just in our portion
of Sunset Park, there are several streets where the majority of homes are now two story
and not single‐story homes as was the case originally. If we're going to insist on tying
the standards to the character of our neighborhoods, we should look at the current built
environment and not just the footprint of original homes.
1. Against State Law Goals. As I believe you are all aware, the State (in an attempt to
address the housing crises) has passed a series of laws requiring greater density and
streamlining of development on R‐1 zoned lots. I gather that most of these bills have
received widespread support. At a time when the State has identified R‐1 zoned lots as
part of the solution to the housing crises, it’s regrettable that the City has decided to try
to reduce the amount that can be built on R‐1 zoned lots.
FAMILY‐FRIENDLY SOLUTIONS: In addition to all of the above and in speaking with
residents both at the workshops and since, I understand that the big concern is not local
families trying to accommodate young children or elderly parents (or both). But instead
I gather residents have been upset by the pace of change triggered by folks interested in
building large, cheap‐looking houses for a quick profit and who have no long‐term
interest in the community. In fact, one woman at the workshop I attended stood up and
said families should be able to build whatever they want, but those in it for a quick
profit should not.
If the Council decides that much lower development standards than those which existed
prior to the adoption of the IZO must be made permanent, I would recommend that
carve‐outs or exceptions be included to accommodate families/owner‐occupied
properties. There would appear there are a number of ways to favor owner‐occupiers
or those not motivated by a quick profit. Examples could include the following pursuant
to which additional parcel coverage/relief from stepbacks could be provided: (a)
imposition of an owner‐occupancy requirement satisfied by means of a signed affidavit
and other evidence (similar to the 3‐unit or less owner‐occupancy requirement under
the City’s Rent Control Law), (b) a more streamlined modification/reasonable
accommodation process which would delay the development process and thus not work
for home flippers but perhaps allow an approval process generally considered
automatic/ministerial absent extraordinary findings to the contrary, (c) compliance with
an informal community outreach requirement (e.g., a requirement that the homeowner
host a community meeting for those on their block to review plans and answer
questions) – while input from neighbors might not necessarily be required to be
addressed it might help bring the community together, allow the homeowner to take
feedback received on board and perhaps ultimately make for a better house, or (d)
require the consent of the immediately adjacent property owner for density above a
certain threshold (similar to the situation with hedge height modifications under the
City’s Municipal Code). Again, these are just ideas but I understand in the past that the
City Council has expressed an interest in giving families/owner‐occupiers relief that
might not be afforded to those who have never occupied the present home and have no
Item 7-F 10/22/19
30 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
6
intention of occupying the home under construction. As above, there is precedent in
the City for some of the measures identified above. And in case of additional density for
owner occupiers, I believe the City of Newport Beach at one point imposed an owner‐
occupancy requirement for those seeking additional development potential to construct
an accessory dwelling unit.
Item 7-F 10/22/19
31 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Kathy Seal <kathyseal@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 21, 2019 12:14 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:10/22/19 agenda item 7-F -- R1 update"
We need to keep our neighborhoods livable and not changed
beyond recognition by the monster mansions. Please vote for the
following zoning rules:
Maximum Parcel Coverage
a) 45% aggregate for new 2-story homes
b) 50% for new one-story homes
c) 55% for existing one-story homes with one-story additions
2) Maximum Height:
a) 28 feet for pitched roofs
b) 23 feet for flat roofs
3) Increased front and side upper story stepbacks
Thank you,
Kathy Seal
‐‐
Kathy Seal
310‐452‐2769
Coauthor, Pressured Parents, Stressed‐out Kids: Dealing With Competition While Raising a
Successful Child and Motivated Minds: Raising Children to Love Learning
Item 7-F 10/22/19
32 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Merle Newman <merlenewman5@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 21, 2019 2:51 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:"10/22/19 agenda item 7-F - R1 update"
Attn: City Council
We have lived at 1757 Sunset Ave. for 30 years. We support FOSP Board regarding
the above matter.
The new construction that is "invading" our neighborhood is too large in proportion
to the homes around them, too tall causing invasion of privacy and loss of light
into our homes and backyards. Not to mention the mass over construction in all
of Santa Monica which only adds to traffic congestion.
Please give this consideration.
Sincerely,
Merle Newman and Marc Sniderman
Item 7-F 10/22/19
33 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Louis Ssutu <lsapc@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, October 21, 2019 3:01 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:lsapc@aol.com; zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:10/22/19 agenda item 7-F -- R1 update
Dear City Council,
I am in full agreement with and totally support the recommendations made in the Friends of Sunset Park letter to the City
Council regarding the above matter.
Unless the City Council quickly gets control of the big white boxes/mini-castles proliferating all over Santa Monica, its
residential areas will become inward looking insular fortresses, not friendly relaxed neighborhoods where neighbors know
and look out for one another.
You can take action to stop this now.
Sincerely,
Lou Ssutu
Item 7-F 10/22/19
34 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:J Charles <j@jscharles.com>
Sent:Monday, October 21, 2019 6:20 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:R-1 Standards
Dear City Council Members,
I urge you to adopt the stafe
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-F 10/22/19
35 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Dara Davis Beer <daradavisbeer@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 21, 2019 6:24 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Comment on R1 Update
Hi, my name is Dara Beer. I am a mom of 4 kids. We live in Santa Monica and send our kids to the
local public school in our neighborhood.
We love living here. We recognize that strong zoning is a reason that Santa Monica is a desirable
place to live and raise a family. However, we are very concerned about the potential changes to the
existing building codes that the City Council is considering. It seems like the City Council is worried
about developers taking over the neighborhoods and they are not seeing that there are many families
that just want to be able to have housing adequate for their children!
Santa Monica does not generally have large lots. The revised standards at 45% FAR make it very
difficult to design an adequate home with the basic spaces for living that can accommodate a family
of 6 (plus elderly parents/ relatives).
The current interim IZO at 50% FAR should be the lowest tier (this represents an almost 20%
reduction right off the top from the previous zoning ordinance—which was at 61% FAR). If anything,
it seems like 55% FAR is a more appropriate place to end up.
We don’t want developers taking over our neighborhoods, either! But we do want to be able to have
houses that can fit our families (and extended families) comfortably.
Hopefully, the City Council can come to a middle ground approach that takes into account the needs
of young families when making this very important decision.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
‐‐
Dara Davis Beer
Shop Drop Concierge
267.934.3243 Cell
To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In
To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In
Item 7-F 10/22/19
36 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Susan Freiman Ross <susanfreimanross@me.com>
Sent:Monday, October 21, 2019 7:42 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:McMansions
Dear Councilperson,
Forty years ago I was drawn to Santa Monica by its authenticity, its small town feel. I was able to purchase a sweet home
built in 1927 and it is in this home that I raised my children. I worked in the Santa Monica‐Malibu School District for
many years and it is within your district that my children received their excellent public education. In those days children
walked to school together and routinely played at each other’s houses after school and on weekends. Pet owners
walked their dogs and would routinely chat. Block parties were routine, neighbors were truly neighborly.
I realize that growth is a natural phenomenon, however the drastic changes in building have created a Santa Monica I no
longer recognize. During these past decades I have watched as homes sold and mansions were built all around me. Not
only has my little home been dwarfed, my neighborhood has lost its heart and soul. The small shops my neighbors and I
supported have been replaced by Rodeo Drive rivals to accommodate my new neighbor’s tastes and demands. Instead
of neighborhood children walking to our public schools, they are whisked away, transported to private schools. Our
beloved school district is obviously not good enough for these new residents. It has become difficult to meet my new
neighbors as many have hedges, fences and gates to insure their privacy and it is a rare occasion that I meet them while
walking my dog, as oftentimes pets are walked by maids in uniform.
We need to ask, “Is this the Santa Monica we want?” Are we to continue to allow property owners to encroach upon
our properties, to tower over us, to build their homes so close to our property line that we can hear each other’s
conversations? I do not think so.
Please consider limiting lot coverage to 45% for new construction! Please save our community!
Susan Ross
Item 7-F 10/22/19
37 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Andrew Stolz <andrewstolz@me.com>
Sent:Monday, October 21, 2019 8:47 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day;
Tony Vazquez; Ted Winterer
Subject:Fwd: Agenda Item 7.F for 10/22/19 City of Santa Monica Regular Meeting
Please ignore my e‐mail as I misunderstood that the proposed revised R‐1 proposed would actually REDUCE not increase
the square footage of available space. As such, I am highly supportive of this revision which will help to reduce those
things that I feared for in my prior e‐mail to the Council.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Andrew Stolz <andrewstolz@me.com>
Subject: Agenda Item 7.F for 10/22/19 City of Santa Monica Regular Meeting
Date: October 21, 2019 at 8:05:32 PM PDT
To: CouncilMtgItems@smgov.net, Gleam.Davis@smgov.net, Sue.Himmelrich@smgov.net,
Kevin@McKeown.net, Pam.OConnor@smgov.net, Terry.ODay@smgov.net,
Tony.Vazquez@smgov.net, Ted.Winterer@smgov.net
Dear Council Members
As a former New Yorker who grew up in Manhattan and now a Santa Monica Resident since 1992, who has
lived in the same home off 21st between Pearl and Ocean Park, I have personally experienced the
transformation of our quiet neighborhood with charm to one with new cookie cutter homes that look like
they belong on Cape Cod. I am not an architect but from my review of the proposed changes to our current
R‐1 zoning rules, I can easily foresee the character of our streets changing with McMansion homes side to
side with little light accompanied by exorbitant house pricing. In this era of increasing awareness of
overabundance in our society that require greater use of our dwindling natural resources, I find it amazing
that Santa Monica is willing to increase the housing footprint on our lots without considering the harm this
does to our environment or homes that need to now exist in the shadow of these unsightly mansions.
I urge you to reconsider this new R‐1 zone regulations that will only lead to more McMasions in our neighbor
and thereby destroy the unique character of Sunset park, which is rapidly eroding due to
unremittent building going on in Santa Monica. You should come by 21st going South between Pearl and
Ocean Park on a weekday afternoon to see what has come from all this explosion in home and commercial
building.
Andrew Stolz
2315 21st Street
Item 7-F 10/22/19
38 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Heather Nevell <hznevell@me.com>
Sent:Monday, October 21, 2019 9:16 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Preserving our neighborhood.
Tomorrow night the SM City Council will vote on a Planning Commission recommendation to limit lot coverage on
residential properties to 45%. I support this proposed ordinance that updates the current development
standards to address the size and scale of new construction in relation to existing neighborhood context, to
incentivize the retention of existing homes, and to make standards more user‐friendly!
I agree to the proposed ordinance which would not allow the massive, over‐sized behemoth homes popping
up in our neighborhoods.
I SUPPORT and AGREE
It is important to strongly endorse the staff's recommendations:
1) Maximum parcel coverage:
45% aggregate for new 2 story homes
50% for new one story homes
55% for existing one story homes with one story addition
2) Maximum height
28 feet for pitched roofs
23 feet for flat roofs ( this will minimize the visual impact of a tall imposing flat wall facing either the street or
neighboring sideyards
3) Increased front and side second story stepbacks
Please include and count my email/letter in support of the above proposal.
Sincerely,
Heather Nevell
626 19th Street
Santa Monica CA
90402
Item 7-F 10/22/19
39 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:David Lappen <dlappen@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 21, 2019 9:44 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Planning Commission's Proposal to limit lot coverage to 45%
Dear City Council Members,
Hi. I’m David Lappen, a Santa Monica homeowner for the past 25 years. One of the things I love about Santa Monica is
the concern the City has shown for Climate Change and environmental issues. It doesn’t always work out as well as
hoped, but lessons are learned and efforts are made to do the right thing.
That is why I am speaking in favor of the Planning Commission’s recommended 45% coverage for two story homes. We
need to do what we can to preserve a livable city. Gargantuan homes have outsized energy needs. They move us in the
wrong direction – towards a less sustainable future. If you allow homes to cover the majority of the green space, pave
paradise and limit the health of our urban island.
I hope that you will see your way fit to preserve what is special and beautiful about Santa Monica rather than racing for
the most profitable developments.
Thank you.
Item 7-F 10/22/19
40 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:J Charles <j@jscharles.com>
Sent:Monday, October 21, 2019 9:55 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:R-1 Standard
Dear Council members,
I urge you to adopt the Staffs R‐1 recommendations in lieu of the Planning Commission’s recommendations that’s before
you.
If the praises the commissioners gave staff were genuine they would’ve recommended the adoption of the staff report
as well.
Other forces were in play, that’s apparent. With the technical work group, community open house attendees and staff
recommending greater then 45% lot coverage the Planning Commission chose to adopt a minority view on that subject.
That’s just not right.
Of course it’s there rights to do but that doesn’t make it right. When the commissioners discussed increasing lot
coverage to 55% for remodels it shows their lack of knowledge. Thankfully the Chair understood the downsides of that,
as there is virtually no difference between new construction and a remodel, the remodel increase wasn’t adopted. The
commissioners outlook was naïve. It was clear from the commissioners comments the purpose for downsizing was
directed towards punishing developers. They should be cognizant that the City of Santa Monica itself is one of the City’s
largest developers and Santa Monica wouldn’t exist without first being a land development.
I encourage you to listen to staff, the majority of citizen and not listen to a selective few.
Sincerely
J Scott Charles
515 Ocean Ave
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-F 10/22/19
41 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:John Skinner <johndavidskinner@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 21, 2019 10:27 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Cc:Jill Skinner
Subject:R1 Update
Dear Councilmembers:
I write as a father of two young boys, a husband, real estate professional and current resident of Santa Monica. Santa
Monica is a city I grew up in and have lived in for 35 of my 42 years.
My wife and I strongly oppose the city planning commission recommendation to a 45% parcel coverage limitation for
those with two stories. This is an over‐correction in trying to inhibit developers that will have unintended and far
reaching negative consequences on Santa Monica residents both in restricting quality of life by drastically limiting what
they can do with their property and disproportionately devaluing smaller lots and less ideal homes (e.g., homes with
bedrooms on different levels that cannot be rectified within these limitations) while simultaneously enhancing the value
of the large homes that were the catalyst to all of this.
1‐ This recommendation is less than the interim ordinance and significantly below the community open house
feedback of 55%. This would equate to a 35%+/‐ reduction in size compared to the original 61% ordinance. Those with
attached garages would be further penalized. How did the planning commission arrive at a 45% consensus when the
feedback from residents landed between 50‐61%?
2‐ This will have severe negative consequences for those with smaller lots that may already have a 2nd story with an
eventual need to be remodeled to accommodate bedrooms on the same level. Providing only 22.5% for the 2nd story,
along with current set‐backs is very constraining and nonsensical. We understood that one of the goals was to promote
remodeling in lieu of new developments. Unfortunately, this change converts some perfectly lovely homes into tear
downs because their floor plan cannot be rectified within these parameters. Further, homeowners that were planning
changes along these lines in the coming years have been deprived of that opportunity and will have to sell (probably to a
developer!) instead of stay and remodel.
3‐ 50‐55% parcel coverage for a one‐story home would result in a very small backyard, practically unusable for those
with 7,000 sq. ft. lots or less. This is one of the most beautiful places to live and having outdoor space to enjoy is critical
to the lifestyle and essential for growing families, especially in a city accused of being “park poor”. Allowing one‐story
homes to have more lot coverage than two story homes is unwarranted. Two‐story homes are already part of the fabric
of Santa Monica homes, particularly north of Montana and a significant number of streets in Sunset/Ocean Park.
4‐ An alarming number of neighbors, realtors and friends who own homes in Santa Monica were either unaware or
mis‐informed of this topic when it was brought to their attention. Some neighbors and realtors thought the proposal
was 55% for both one and two‐story structures. It appears this endeavor is being led by a vocal minority in
neighborhood leadership positions that do not truly represent the opinions of the majority of homeowners. I appreciate
the city planning office efforts to create awareness about the ordinance, but it seems to be missing input from families
and the many dual working households who simply do not have the time to pay as close attention to city politics.
5‐ The gap between those that have homes built to the max of the original 61% city ordinance and those that would
fall under this new proposed ordinance would be massive. In fact, a few property owners of “maxed” homes are
supporting this ordinance out of their own greed since it “will make their homes worth considerably more” further
exacerbating the “haves” vs. “have not” mentality.
Item 7-F 10/22/19
42 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
2
A few thoughts on solutions‐
*Scale back the proposed upper‐story set‐backs to make sure they can accommodate a typical family having their
bedrooms on the same level.
*55% seems like a rational reduction…or 50% without including garages in the lot coverage area. It is unfair to those
who use garages for parking purposes to have it count against their living space.
*How about carve‐outs/exceptions to accommodate families/owner‐occupied properties compared to for profit
developers?
*Create flexibility for property owners in how they want to use their allotted lot coverage. Having the right to an ADU is
a great option but some residents may not need it and thus unfairly penalized compared to those with ADU's exempted
from the lot coverage.
Thank you for your time and consideration of the information above. We appreciate your service to one of the greatest
cities in the world to live.
All the Best,
John and Jill Skinner
323 9th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
310‐486‐5962
Item 7-F 10/22/19
43 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Beverly Grossman <bevgrossman@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 21, 2019 11:45 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Ross Fehrman
Subject:Public comment for Agenda Item 7F, R1 Development Standards
To the Honorable City Council,
My family and I are lucky to have lived in Santa Monica since 2005, and to have bought a home that we love in Sunset
Park in 2012. We live with our two children and two dogs on a great street. Our home is a 1956 house that was
remodeled by a prior owner in the mid-1990s to add a second story. I am writing to urge you to maintain at least the
50% lot coverage provisions in the IZO for two story homes, not just for single story homes, because the 45% lot
coverage proposal will significantly impede even a small addition to existing two story homes. Many two-story homes in
our neighborhood are not the new Monster Mansions that inspired the IZO, but are rather simple additions to older homes
that could bear updating and possible additions to support today's families.
We became involved with the R1 development standards because we would like remodel our existing home and add a
single bedroom for one of our children on the second story, where we currently have a master bedroom and one other
room. We quickly learned that adding any square footage would require us to expand our garage by a single foot, and to
seek a discretionary modification. Adding this one foot to our garage would not benefit us one bit, and would actually
require losing interior space in our home. This expensive and pointless requirement dampened our enthusiasm for
remodeling -- until we learned that these standards were open for reconsideration in the R1 development standards
revision process.
I testified about our issue before the Planning Commission on June 19, and we were pleased to see the Planning
Commission concurred that parking standards needed to be revised to eliminate these barriers to remodeling. I hope that
the Council continues this approach, which removes needless requirements and is inconsistent with the City's goal to
reduce the use of cars for transport.
However, at the August 7 meeting, the Planning Commission -- in a split vote-- decided to recommend a 45% lot coverage
restriction on two story homes. It will now become quite difficult and expensive to add that one bedroom to our existing
house if the Council follows this recommendation, which I urge you not to do.
As the staff report reveals, neither the Technical Committee or the community input sessions demonstrated a desire for a
45% lot coverage restriction on two story homes. Rather, the consensus recommendations were around 50% to 55% for
all homes. It seems the 45% reduction for second story homes was inspired largely out of the concern for the privacy of
neighbors. I think the Council should seriously consider whether the various setback requirements are not sufficient to
allow for neighboring homes to have sufficient privacy, and whether the privacy invasion is significantly greater when a
home is 5% larger, given the setbacks and second story ratio limitations included in the staff proposals.
The Council should also consider the concerns, raised by some of the Planning Commissioners, that the 50% and 55%
standards for single story homes will result in sprawling one story homes with reduced green space. The Council should
encourage the preservation of open space and permeable surfaces, and recognize the desire for backyard space -- for
children, for pets, for gardening, and for tree coverage.
As some of the Planning Commissioners commented, families have a desire to have all of a family's bedrooms on the
second story in a two story home. The 45% lot coverage restriction for two story homes makes this more difficult,
particularly in a remodel situation where a home's other features are not necessarily subject to re-arrangement.
At the very least, since a large part of the purpose of the R1 development standards review process is to facilitate the
remodeling of existing homes, two story homes in existence at the date of the enactment of the new ordinance should be
permitted additional lot coverage in a remodel, just as the proposal includes for single story remodels. This provision
would not encourage speculative development, but would provide flexibility for existing residents and future residents who
purchase older two-story homes. These homes are already built, so any privacy impact of additional square footage
would be minimal. If we want to encourage residents to remodel their homes, we should not be penalizing those who
Item 7-F 10/22/19
44 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
2
already happen to own a second story home. It seems illogical that we could gain more square footage by demolishing
our existing home and building a new single story home. The Planning Commission seems to have ignored the fact that
there are already many older, two-story homes throughout the City that may need modest additions of square footage to
accommodate the legitimate needs of new owners without becoming the despised speculative Monster Mansions.
While some Planning Commissioners thought it would be "cool" if people in our position built an ADU to gain square
footage, I don't think it is fair to force people to spend money and waste resources building unneeded kitchens and
bathrooms just to house a child or have a home office. I would rather not put a kitchen and separate bathroom in my
child's room, along with a separate exterior entrance, just to be able to add a small bedroom to my house, but it may be
that this approach is the only way we could achieve our goal. This would be a perverse result in a city that prides itself on
sustainability: how is it sustainable to add a bathroom and kitchen to a house that is unneeded? I am all for the creation
of ADUs for those who want and need them, but if someone is being forced to build one just to get extra square footage
that they need for their family, that is wasteful.
Two story homes should not be penalized or vilified. They are the norm on our street, and increasingly common on other
streets in Sunset Park. Set one standard for lot coverage, and let homeowners decide whether they want a one story or
two story home. If you want to encourage remodeling, make it easier and give incentives to do it, but don't penalize
remodels by people who live in two story homes. There are already many rules and standards imposed for set backs and
modulation that we all must work within that will serve to limit the construction of overly large, speculative homes by
developers. Don't overly restrict the form of development to eliminate the types of homes that so many families would like
to live in.
Thank you for your consideration.
Beverly Palmer
Sunset Ave
Item 7-F 10/22/19
45 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:stanley morris <scmorris63@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 12:40 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Stop - Do Not Reduce the Size of Single Family Homes
Please do not reduce the size that home owners can build. If for not other reason, the city will receive less in property
taxes. There is no good reason to reduce the building size. This will hurt current owners values for no reason. Stop it.
People should be allowed to build the size and type of home they want with minimal government interference. Please
do not further reduce the size of the houses. It should go back to 61%.
Stanley C. Morris
Corrigan & Morris LLP
O: (310) 394‐2828
M: (310) 968‐3453
Item 7-F 10/22/19
46 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Van Denburgh <emvandenburgh@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 8:43 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Nancy Coleman; Zina Josephs; Laurence Eubank; betzi richardson; MANJU RAMAN; John C Smith;
Mary Marlow; Stacy Dalgleish; Andrew Hoyer; Tricia Crane
Subject:10/22/19 agenda item 7-F -- R1 update
October 22, 2019
To: City Council
From: Wilmont Executive Committee
RE: 10/22/19 item 7F ‐ R1 (Single‐Unit Residential) Development Standards Update
The Executive Committee of the Wilmont Board supports the following for R1 standards in the City as recommended by
the Planning Commission, Planning Staff, NOMA and FOSP:
1) Maximum Parcel Coverage
a) 45% aggregate for new 2‐story homes
b) 50% for new one‐story homes
c) 55% for existing one‐story homes with one‐story additions
2) Maximum Height:
a) 28 feet for pitched roofs
b) 23 feet for flat roofs
3) Increased front and side upper story stepbacks
In addition we would request continued study, recommendations and implementation of the items below to ensure we
are ready to continue to update the R1 standards for improved livability and well‐being in the City.
The effect of the large homes in Santa Monica and additional stories in multiple housing districts for solar energy
access and equability.
Need for tree replacement when a developer levels trees on private property to replace the trees.
In a future "fee study" to include incentives to decrease the fees for renovations of homes.
Include greater regulation of the manner in which hillside houses need to be reviewed ‐ not simply go before the
Architecture Review Board.
Thank‐you to the Planning Staff, neighborhood groups and Planning Commission for their dedicated and data driven
approach to these recommendations.
Sincerely,
Item 7-F 10/22/19
47 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
2
Executive Committee of Wilmont Board
Item 7-F 10/22/19
48 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 9:08 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Greg Morena; Sue
Himmelrich; Ana Maria Jara; Clerk Mailbox; Rick Cole; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject:Agenda Item 7-F (R1 Development) City Council meeting 10/22/2019
To: Santa Monica City Council
From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Re: Agenda Item 7-F (R1 Development Standards Update)
Oct. 22, 2019
The Board of Northeast Neighbors thanks the neighborhood leaders, City staff, Planning
Commission, and all of the residents and professionals who participated in the R1 Review and
Update now under consideration.
We agree that the following changes would help to discourage future out-of-scale home-building:
Maximum Parcel Coverage
o 45% aggregate for new 2-story homes
o 50% for new one-story homes
55% for existing one-story homes with one-story additions
Maximum Height
o 28 ft. maximum for pitched roofs
o 23 ft. maximum for flat roofs
We also support the proposed increases to front and side upper story step-backs.
Regrettably, there are two revisions we have proposed and advocated for that have not been brought
forward. Both of these should be important to a City that values Sustainability and Affordability:
Solar Access Rights to ensure that all homes are protected from being overshadowed by
adjacent larger new construction. Just because Staff has reported this has not been a
Item 7-F 10/22/19
49 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
2
"problem" in the past does not mean it won't pose a future threat as development continues.
We would like to see this matter pursued for community discussion and consideration.
Reduction of City Fees for Remodels to incentivize the preservation of the existing
variety and history of homes and to prevent the environmental harm and waste that is
generated by demolitions and new construction. Conservation architecture and the
repurposing of existing buildings should be encouraged and rewarded with financial incentives.
Sincerely,
The Board members of Northeast Neighbors
Item 7-F 10/22/19
50 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Geraldine <gak.cpp@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 9:19 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:10/22/19 agenda item 7-F -- R1 update
Dear Planning Commission Members,
I whole heartedly support the following R1 building standards update:
1) Maximum Parcel Coverage
a) 45% aggregate for new 2‐story homes
b) 50% for new one‐story homes
c) 55% for existing one‐story homes with one‐story additions
2) Maximum Height:
a) 28 feet for pitched roofs
b) 23 feet for flat roofs
3) Increased front and side upper story stepbacks
One need only see the development currently underway at 2228 Cloverfield Blvd. to understand why such explicit
guidelines are necessary. It is hard to imagine any current or previous standards that would have permitted this massive
two‐building, two story, nose‐thumbing of the neighborhood. And yet, there it is ‐ and will be for the next century ‐ an
affront and a dangerous precedent.
In addition to the above standards, I also propose requiring the planting of two trees for every one removed for
construction. The type to be chosen from a list determined by our arborist for its shade and air‐cleansing qualities.
Thank you for your consideraton.
Sincerely,
Geraldine Kennedy, former Planning Commissioner
Item 7-F 10/22/19
51 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:fospairport@rocketmail.com
Sent:Monday, October 21, 2019 11:51 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Greg Morena; Sue Himmelrich; Ana Maria Jara; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Ted Winterer; Terry O’Day; David Martin; Jing Yeo; Tony Kim; Ross Fehrman
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:Oct. 22 Item 7-F R-1 Standards
Attachments:IMG_4530.JPG
City Councilmembers,
I support the below Planning Commission and Staff recommendations for the updated R‐1 standards to help preserve
the neighborhood character, diminish the impact of the remodeling/tear downs on adjacent neighbors, and incentivize
preservation of existing homes.
1) Maximum Parcel Coverage
a) 45% aggregate for new 2-story homes
b) 50% for new one-story homes
c) 55% for existing one-story homes with one-story additions
2) Maximum Height:
a) 28 feet for pitched roofs
b) 23 feet for flat roofs
3) Increased front and side upper story stepbacks
I would also like to encourage you to direct staff to address specific R-1 standards in the hillside neighborhoods that were
not included in this recent update including:
View protection
Reviewing height standards
Allowable hillside excavation
Mass perception from the street and adjacent neighbors
Example of what is happening in our neighborhood attached.
Thank you,
Cathy Larson
Sunset Park Resident
Item 7-F 10/22/19
52 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Michelle Corrigan <mmccorrigan@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 8:05 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Stanley Morris; Lorretta Corrigan
Subject:Against Further Reduction of House Development Size North of Montana in Santa Monica
As a resident of our beautiful city for the past 50‐years and home owner for the past 17‐years, I am strictly opposed to
further reduction of house development size in Santa Monica. Please refrain from trying to further limit home owners
rights in this amazing city. Thank you, Michelle Corrigan
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-F 10/22/19
53 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Noma Boardmember <nomaboard@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 9:05 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Subject NOMA Supports Staff Report Item 7-F, R1 Standards
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
To: City Council
From: Board of Directors, NOMA
Re: 10/22/19 Item 7-F – R1 (single-unit Residential Development Standards Update
The NOMA Board has been concerned with the persistent McMansionization of the R-1 neighborhoods in our
City ans been working with other neighborhood organizations for more than two years on mitigating the impact
of such new construction in these areas. We appreciate and thank the City Council, The Planning Commission,
and the staff for their work and efforts on this issue. NOMA members have participated in the Technical
Working Group and the stakeholder meetings that have taken place earlier this year.
The LUCE values our residential neighborhoods as one of most vital and distinguishing features of our city and
sets out the goal of protecting them. That protection has never been more important than now.
NOMA supports the Planning Commission's decisions at its August meeting and the recommendations of the
staff report to curb the excesses of recent constructions and maintain our neighborhoods' quality of life. These
recommendations include:
1. Maximum Parcel Coverage (exclusive of ADUs) of:
a. 45% aggregate for new 2-story homes
b. 50% for new one-story homes
Item 7-F 10/22/19
54 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
2
c. 55% for existing on-story homes with one-story additions
2. Maximum Height:
a. 28 feet for pitched roofs
b. 23 feet for flat roofs
3. Increased front and side upper-story step-backs
Sustainability is a guiding principle for Santa Monica, yet mansionization of the R1 neighborhoods militates
against that, as it's been shown to impede sunlight and air circulation to neighbors and to reduce green areas
and open space. This is especially a concern in NOMA as there are no parks in our neighborhood and families
muse use available yard space for their children's play.
smnoma.org
NOMAboard@gmail.com
Item 7-F 10/22/19
55 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Susan Giesberg <susan.giesberg@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 9:15 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:R 1 Proposed Ordinance on Tonight's City Council Agenda
Dear City Council Members,
My name is Susan Giesberg and I have been a renter and later an owner for over the thirty years I have lived in Santa
Monica.
Since the late 1990’s residents have asked the City Council to limit the size and scale of new residential construction in
Santa Monica. Despite this outcry, Santa Monica has continued to allow the paving over of our residential lots.
I know first‐hand the impact on neighboring properties that unrestrained newly constructed homes have. These
properties burst from their original footprint and occupy almost the full measure of the lot. The house behind ours was
bulldozed with over twelve mature trees to leave a gaping hole. The new house reaches almost to the edges of the
property’s width and is spitting distance from our back fence. The rear walls of the neighboring homes are at least
twenty feet forward from the rear wall of the new monster mansion. In fact the swimming pool will be within an arm’s
length of our property line.
Twenty‐five years ago my husband and I planted a rare fruit orchard in our back yard. Every year we harvest hundreds
of figs, over a thousand passion fruit, chermoyas, babacos, sapotes, and various citrus. We have already lost our
productive fig tree to the neighbors and their retaining wall will cut through major roots of the majority of our fruit trees
imperiling their productivity and probably their viability – to say nothing of the shading impact on our orchard. Of
course, this speaks to not only unrestricted construction sanctioned by the city but the continued lack of foresight in
limiting encroachment.
The Planning Commission has recommended a 45% coverage for two story homes. It is imperative that we limit
maximum lot coverage to the 45 considering the new state law on ADUs.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Susan Giesberg
Item 7-F 10/22/19
56 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Deborah Silverstein <Deborah@deborahsilverstein.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 9:39 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Proposed Ordinance to R-1 to reduce to 45% for North of Montana 90402
Dear City Council members,
As a North of Montana Home Owner I object to a further reduction of 45% Maximum Parcel Coverage.
North of Montana is beginning to look like The Strand In Marina Del Rey where houses are so small they look like
Condominiums not Single Family Homes as intended.
The current 50% is already to limiting and small to build or renovate a house.
North of Montana is one of the nicest areas you can live in LA comparable to Beverly Hills
We should be allowed to build or renovate and expect to have a decent size house for our efforts.
If the goal is make North of Montana look like Townhomes than sure 45% will do that but we are talking about R‐1 Single
Family Lots. 50% is already too small.
It will create the haves and the haves not meaning homeowners who already have older New Construction homes will
benefit because you cannot build that size again and anyone new wanting to build will be limited and will not receive the
same price for their house even if built on the same size lots.
We have already seen a substantial decline in the price of a lot NOM due to the 50% if it is reduced any further it will
push back prices even lower.
The only people who will benefit are those homeowners who built in the 1990 early 2000’s and they will reap the
rewards because their houses are under the OLD CODE.
It hardly seems fair or equitable to reduce the lot coverage to 45% who will benefit no one !
If we wanted to live in a Townhome or have our neighbors house look like a Townhome we wouldn’t have bought North
of Montana.
Please leave the Parcel Coverage at 50% or better please raise it or return it to its previous coverage which was even
greater.
I do not want my property values going down because someone has decided to reduce it yet again.
Thank you,
Deborah Silverstein
d. 310.395.0113
m. 310.339.9295
deborah@deborahsilverstein.com
Item 7-F 10/22/19
57 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Skyfilm <skyfilm@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 9:47 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:10/22/19 agenda item 7-F -- R1 update I agree with Planning Comm & Staff recommendations
to Council,
I'm a member of the Friends of Sunset Park Neighborhood Association and I'm writing to express my support for the
recommendations of the Planning Commission & Staff regarding agenda item 7-F--R1 and that these recommendations
be implemented.
AB881 which was recently signed into law by Gov Newsom and introduced by Richard Bloom, our local State
Assemblyman. (I have no idea why Bloom would think the requirements of his bill would be appropriate for S.M or any
other local area in his District-did he ask any voters/residents?) is simply VERY BAD LAW-overreaching, overbearing, and
lacking in reasonable local flexibility. In addition, migration to CA has flattened out-in fact, there's been a slight net
outbound migration recently as always happens in every economic cycle when costs to live in CA become too
high. Consequently, the squeeze on higher-cost housing has already begun to ease.
Without going into an exhaustive discussion as to why AB881 is bad law as the list is very, very long, I will limit my
comments to mentioning that CA is a huge state (more like a country) and "one size does not fit all." Dropping another
house-sized structure in the backyard of a R1 residential lot is not going to solve, or even meaningfully ease, California's
housing crunch and need for affordable and moderately-priced housing and housing for the homeless. Santa Monica and
many areas in Bloom's district are not "moderately priced." Further, existing homeowners in an R-1 zone have an
expectation that their neighborhood will retain its character and integrity as a residential neighborhood. Santa Monica has
evaluated and made enormous effort to balance the desire and need to increase the housing stock with the expectations
and rights of existing residents.
By overriding Santa Monica's requirement that the owner of an R-1 parcel with an ADU be on-premises and continue to
occupy one of the structures as a primary residence, Bloom has trampled on the rights of the existing homeowners and
undermined the integrity of Santa Monica's neighborhoods as well as opening the door to added public health and safety
issues. The other elements of the law overriding Santa Monica's ADU parameters contribute further to undermining Santa
Monica's efforts. Lastly, allowing two rentals on an R-1 zoned property is very similar to the circumstances presented by
Airbnb, HomeAway and other short-term rentals. The courts have upheld Santa Monica's right to regulate short-term
rentals. Santa Monica, therefore, should also have the right to establish conditions and parameters for ADUs that meet
local needs without overbearing state interference.
Reducing the allowable footprint and then increasing the size of an ADU defeats the whole purpose of trying to manage
density. A 1,000 sq. ft. ADU is the equivalent of adding a second house to a property. I urge you to do what you can to
ensure the continued integrity and stability of our R-1 neighborhoods while taking AB881 into consideration (or perhaps
Santa Monica could also challenge the validity of AB881?).
Bradford Pollack
Item 7-F 10/22/19
58 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Kathy Knight <kathyknight66@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 10:47 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:10/22/19 Agenda Item 7-F - R1 Update
October 21, 2019
To: Santa Monica City Council
From: Kathy Knight,
Sunset Park Resident for 22 years
kathyknight66@gmail.com
Re: 10/22/19 Item 7‐F ‐ R1 (Single‐Unit Residential) Development Standards Update
I support the following which the Planning Commission recommended and what the Planning Staff is recommending:
1) Maximum Parcel Coverage
a) 45% aggregate for new 2-story homes
b) 50% for new one-story homes
c) 55% for existing one-story homes with one-story additions
2) Maximum Height:
a) 28 feet for pitched roofs
b) 23 feet for flat roofs
3) Increased front and side upper story stepbacks
Please support these recommendations. We need to protect the R-1 zoning in our City. They have a very special
neighborhood atmosphere
that is precious to us. I live in a 1300 sq. ft. home that was built in 1953 by a Santa Monica fireman in his time off with his
buddies. The lot is 2/3 open space with room for plants and trees to grow - which offsets global warming.
I see one story houses bought up by developers that don’t plan to live here. They just want to make as much
money as possible.
They build huge 2 story houses that take up most of the lot, leaving no room for trees or back yards for children
to play in, and cutting off the sunlight to homes next door.
We need to remember that trees take in carbon dioxide and produce oxygen for us to breathe. We really need room for them
in our community.
PLEASE SUPPORT the Recommendations of the Planning Commission and the Planning Staff.
Thank you very much,
Kathy Knight
1122 Oak St., Santa Monica, CA 90405
310-613-1175
More about the importance of trees:
Trees create an ecosystem to provide habitat and food for birds and other
animals. Trees absorb carbon dioxide and potentially harmful gasses, such as sulfur dioxide, carbon
Item 7-F 10/22/19
59 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
2
monoxide, from the air and release oxygen. One large tree can supply a day's supply of oxygen for
four people.
Benefits of Trees - NC State University
https://projects.ncsu.edu › project › treesofstrength › benefits
Item 7-F 10/22/19
60 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Joe Faris <drschwa@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 11:07 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:10/22/19 item 7-F -R1(single-unit residential) Development Standards Update
I support the following:
1) Maximum Parcel Coverage
a) 45% aggregate for new 2-story homes
b) 50% for new one-story homes
c) 55% for existing one-story homes with one-story additions
2) Maximum Height:
a) 28 feet for pitched roofs
b) 23 feet for flat roofs
3) Increased front and side upper story stepbacks
Please approve these recommendations of the Santa Monica Planning Commission and the Santa
Monica Planning Staff.
The existing character of our residential neighborhoods depend
upon it.
Thank you,
Joe Faris
Item 7-F 10/22/19
61 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Aliceann Grusin <aagrs@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 11:20 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:10/22/19 agenda item 7-F - R1 Update
Honorable Councilmembers,
We are writing to you to support passage of item 7F, the R1 Development Standards Update. We are 20 year Sunset
Park residents, and have spoken before the City Council and the Planning Commission may times about the loss of
affordable housing and replacement with overly large and intrusive developer "spec" houses. We are now surrounded on
3 sides with 3800 to 4800 sq foot + houses. All three existing homes, and another down the street, were owned for many
years by people who raised their families, sent their children to Grant, JAMS and SAMO and participated in their
communities. When these owners decided to sell, they received all cash, no contingency offers from developers. Families
wishing to buy a modest home and join our community simply couldn't compete. All houses were razed and replaced by
massive "McMansions". The buyers usually pay 3.5 million and up for their trophy homes. Our point is, when this
happens, we don't just lose privacy and sunlight, we lose community and diversity. We're asking you to support the
residents of Santa Monica and the Planning Commissions recommendations.
Thank you,
Aliceann & Stuart Grusin
2315 26th St.
310-770-7430
Item 7-F 10/22/19
62 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
Item 7-F 10/22/19
63 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Paula Goldman <goldwolf01@earthlink.net>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:01 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 7-F, R1 Development Standards Update
Dear Council and fellow neighbors,
Please approve the R1 Development Standards Update.
I went to one of the workshops, and found the proposals really well thought‐out.
The staff really tried to listen to all opinions, and has followed up with email updates.
The Update incorporates the previous patchwork of neighborhood moratoriums on oversized mansions, and considers
the impact of ADUs.
Over development is a huge quality of life issue in Santa Monica, as you know.
We have so few parks, maintaining a minimum amount of open space via setbacks and lot coverage is necessary to
maintain a livable community.
Keeping R1 areas from being overbuilt will go a long way toward making it easier to ask for density along transit
corridors and downtown.
There can always be some tweaks (such as the size limitation on upstairs outdoor balconies, which seems a bit
arbitrary), but as long as the Architectural Review Board is willing to review design‐based exceptions, the plan seems
great.
I would like to point out that we have gotten mailings, landline messages, and cell‐phone texts from groups threatening
that Santa Monica is planning on ruining our property values with this Update.
Please be prepared to combat fake news tonight.
Thanks for your work and consideration.
Paula Goldman and Brian Wolf
2821 Washington Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Paula Goldman
PaulaGoldman.com
Item 7-F 10/22/19
64 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Nancy Stark <nancyestark@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:04 PM
To:councilmtgitems; 'Gleam Davis'; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Terry O’Day; Sue Himmelrich; Greg Morena;
Ted Winterer; Ana Maria Jara
Subject:AGAINST - Santa Monica Proposed Ordinance To Limit Development
As a North of Montana resident, I was alarmed to read that the City of Santa Monica is moving to further reduce the
square footage that can be built on our lots. The most recent reduction in buildable square footage has addressed the
issue of “mansionization” and has in turn, also reduced land value for owners.
This proposed ordinance will do nothing to increase the housing supply in Santa Monica. It is not in the interest of
current or future North of Montana residents, nor does it reflect the recommendations of Community Open Houses or a
Technical Working Group.
The ordinance is not reasonable and without merit.
Nancy Stark
Item 7-F 10/22/19
65 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Nevell, David F - CENTURY CI CA <david_f_nevell@ml.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:07 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Preserving our neighborhood.
Tomorrow night the SM City Council will vote on a Planning Commission recommendation to limit lot
coverage on residential properties to 45%. I support this proposed ordinance that updates the
current development standards to address the size and scale of new construction in relation to existing
neighborhood context, to incentivize the retention of existing homes, and to make standards more user‐
friendly!
I agree to the proposed ordinance which would not allow the massive, over‐sized behemoth homes
popping up in our neighborhoods.
I SUPPORT and AGREE
It is important to strongly endorse the staff's recommendations:
1) Maximum parcel coverage:
45% aggregate for new 2 story homes
50% for new one story homes
55% for existing one story homes with one story addition
2) Maximum height
28 feet for pitched roofs
23 feet for flat roofs ( this will minimize the visual impact of a tall imposing flat wall facing either the
street or neighboring sideyards
3) Increased front and side second story stepbacks
Please include and count my email/letter in support of the above proposal.
Sincerely,
David Nevell
626 19th Street
Santa Monica CA
90402
David Nevell, CFP®, CDFA®, CRPS®
Senior Vice President
Wealth Management Advisor
Item 7-F 10/22/19
66 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
2
Senior Portfolio Advisor
NMLS ID: 558598
Nevell/Popovich Group
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2800, Century City, CA 90067
Tel# 310‐777‐5322
Fax# 310‐256‐2016
david_f_nevell@ml.com
www.fa.ml.com/NEVELL_POPOVICH
For insights on the go follow Merrill Lynch on Twitter LinkedIn and You Tube
Life’s better when we’re connected™
We consider your monthly statements and/or trade confirmations to be the official record of your transactions. This
electronic mail is being provided for informational purposes only and/or in response to your request. Portions of this
material may have been produced using a template designed by a Merrill Lynch Financial Advisor. In the event of any
discrepancy between it and data produced through the programs of Merrill Lynch, the recipient must rely on the latter.
Information herein, including but not limited to research, market valuations, calculations and estimates is believed to be
reliable but Merrill Lynch does not warrant its completeness or accuracy. Opinions and estimates constitute our judgment
and are subject to change without notice. Past performance is not indicative of future results. This material is not intended
as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument. Furthermore, the information contained in
this transmission is confidential and intended only for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this communication is not
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, copying, facsimile, and other distribution
is strictly prohibited.
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at
http://www.bankofamerica.com/emaildisclaimer. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message.
Item 7-F 10/22/19
67 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Trevor Belden <tb@industrypartners.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:25 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:North of Montana
I live at 429 22nd street. Please do not pass any further ordinances limiting the size of new construction in the R1 zoning
north of montana.
The current ordinances limitations are already to severe.
Thanks,
Trevor and Ana Belden
TREVOR BELDEN, PARTNER
tb@industrypartners.com
INDUSTRY PARTNERS
T 310 395 5151 M 310 924 9160
LICENSE No.01181478
www.industrypartners.com
Item 7-F 10/22/19
68 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Tova Larsen <tovalarsen@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:30 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Greg Morena; Ted Winterer; Terry O’Day; Ana Maria Jara; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Sue Himmelrich
Cc:councilmtgitems; Tony Kim; David Martin; Jing Yeo; Ross Fehrman; Council Mailbox
Subject:Agenda Item 7-F (10.22.19): Ordinance to Amend the Text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance Related to
R1 (Single-Unit Residential) Development Standards
Dear Council Members:
I am writing to request that the current R1 zoning ordinances in the IZO be maintained, specifically
the 50% maximum parcel coverage plus the additional 800sf for the ADU.
This past Spring, my family and I became residents of Santa Monica, purchasing a home in Sunset
Park. We are a multi-generational family of six and we intentionally chose a property that would be
well suited to house grandparents, parents, and school-aged children alike. The 50% parcel
coverage plus the additional 800sf ADU was a major factor in our decision.
Learning that there is now a proposal on the table to reduce the parcel coverage to 45% is
concerning. I understand the history that led to reducing the previous R1 zoning ordinances from
61% to 50%, however, the proposed changes to further reduce the parcel coverage to 45% seem to
be an overcorrection.
Also of concern is the implied motivation behind reducing the parcel coverage to 45%. Language in
the proposal suggests that this recommendation is due in part to incentivize home owners to build
single story dwellings, which are seen as less visually impactful. In my neighborhood, however, two-
story dwellings already comprise 40% of total homes. These homes blend beautifully into the three
lined streets. Penalizing owner-builders from future development of two-story homes is both unfair
and does not reflect the times we live in.
Furthermore, other zoning ordinances would preclude my family from even taking advantage of this
proposed incentive. If we were, for example, interested in building a single story structure, the
setbacks on our property will only allow a total parcel coverage of 36.5%, which is far short of the
55% offered as a proposed carrot to incentivize single story structures.
My last concern has to do with the timing of the proposed zoning ordinance changes. If this reduction
in the parcel coverage were to pass and go into effect on January 1, two months is not enough time
to respond in schematic design and design development documents. This would place an unfair
burden on my family, and any others in similar positions, and we would be faced with restarting our
design process.
My primary request is that you reject the current proposal for modifications to the R1 zoning
ordinances. Perhaps the IZO could be adopted as the new ordinances or perhaps further study could
be recommended. If adopting the new ordinances is the direction this body decides to take, my
second request is that a year-long grace period be authorized to transition from the IZO to the new
ordinances.
Item 7-F 10/22/19
69 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
2
Thank you for your considerations.
Sincerely,
Tova Larsen
2031 Marine Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 350-1375
Item 7-F 10/22/19
70 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Diane Burkin <dlburkin@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:41 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Maximum Parcel Coverage from 61% to 50% to 45%
Dear City Council,
It is to my surprise the City Council is considering further reductions on maximum lot coverage in R1 zones. We just
approved a reduction in March 2018 to 50%. And I agreed on that reduction. At 61% we were getting a large massing on
a lot. Let us have some time to see the results of this 50% lot coverage. I am an architect in the area and we still need to
build 4 bedroom homes = four bedrooms on the second floor. (not bedrooms on the ground floor or bedrooms in the
garage or basement). 50% is the perfect formula for most lots. In addition, our property values as they are today will not
hold if we can only build smaller homes. We’ve got to retain value otherwise, the middle class will be driven out and the
upper class will leave to find bigger homes elsewhere.
Please consider stopping at 50% lot coverage.
Respectfully,
Diane Burkin
Diane Burkin, AIA
Diane Burkin Design
dianeburkinarchitecture.com
914‐874‐6636
Item 7-F 10/22/19
71 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ania Patterson <kpatterson1@earthlink.net>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 3:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:R1 UPDATE
Dear Council Members:
As a 50‐year homeowner in Santa Monica ‐ residing for that duration in the same 1920’s home ‐ and as a Westside realtor for over 45 years, I want
to express my disappointment in, and opposition to, the current restrictive proposal concerning the reduction to 45% of the building‐to‐lot ratio, as
well as the reduction of any second story square footage to 22.5% of the property size. Such cutbacks not only defy logic but fail to address any
realistic concerns, such as ‘mansionization’ issues which were adequately dealt with by the previous reduction to 61%.
1. As a realtor, I have not met a single prospective seller of an older, undersized (for the area) home who supports the proposed extreme reduction
in lot coverage. It clearly and significantly reduces the number of interested buyers in a property which couldn’t be developed/expanded
to accommodate most current family’s reasonable needs. It also fails to provide such a property with an equitable standing as measured against
the rest of the already developed neighborhood homes. That fact, without question, reduces the value of such a property by a considerable
amount. Furthermore, restricting the second‐story square footage to 22.5 % of the lot eliminates many attractive architectural styles that ought to
be encouraged ‐ not dismissed ‐ since their inclusion would prevent Santa Monica from eventually looking like a tract development.
2. Metaphorically speaking, closing the barn doors after all the horses have escaped accomplishes nothing more than creating an ugly imbalance
between the existing large‐to‐enormous homes and the small, older homes ‐‐‐ all on equal‐size lots ‐‐‐ for no logical reason or positive outcome!
Simply put….. too little (positive effects), too late!
3. By forcing new owners to resort to building ADU’s, not for the purpose of housing a family member, but for obtaining the additional square
footage they’re seeking beyond the 45% restriction, this would likely cause greater lot coverage than if that owner were allowed to simply add the
sought‐after square footage.
4. Speaking again as both a homeowner and a realtor, I’m confounded by the large number of Santa Monica homeowners ‐ across the spectrum of
house sizes ‐ who have been unaware of this short‐sighted proposal. With one exception (an owner who is comfortably ensconced in his mega‐
mansion and feels he beat the system!), the consistent reaction to my inquiry has been one of shock and cynicism described as “a typical Santa
Monica government move."
Perhaps, if leaving the current restriction at 61% is, for some ambiguous reason, truly unacceptable to a majority of homeowners (most of whom
have likely already built their mansions!), a compromise could be made to reduce the current 61% ratio of improvements‐to‐lot size to not less
than 55%. Going beyond such a cutback is, in my opinion, unnecessary, unreasonable and unfair.
I strongly oppose this R1 Update proposal as stated, and urge you to be guided by the principles of logic, long‐term effectiveness and true justice
in your re‐consideration of this unnecessarily extreme proposal, one which will undoubtedly have far‐reaching, negative consequences in the
future.
Sincerely,
Ania Patterson
Kerry Patterson Company
Item 7-F 10/22/19
72 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Tim Symington <timsymington@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 3:48 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:R1 Update
Greetings ‐
My name is Tim Symington, I'm a 4th generation Santa Monica resident, and a new homeowner on Berkeley ave in
northeast santa monica.
I've had the opportunity to attempt to design my home while reviewing both the current standard, and the proposed
standard. This has given me unique insight as to what the actual impact will be to home construction.
For various reasons, the changes to the R1 zoning will likely not affect me personally ‐ but I wanted to share what I've
learned with the city council to help my future neighbors build better homes and a better city.
I respect and share the concerns that my friends here have voiced about towering homes encroaching on the space and
privacy of their neighbors. That being said, when you speak to the local experts, and work on designing a home, you
learn that the tools to address these problems have nothing to do with coverage and square feet, and everything to do
stepbacks, setbacks, upper story balcony space, and height limits ‐ all of which are utilized heavily in the proposed R1
amendments. Lot coverage limitations are a blunt object to address the problem when you don't have time or nuanced
expertise at your disposal, which made it useful for the interim zoning ordinance, but harmful for long term planning.
There really is one simple problem with the change from 50 to 45% coverage: families will not be able to build the
number of bedrooms they want or need on the second floor ‐ I know this with certainty from looking at various
drawings. It is simply impossible for even the the largest lots in Gillete Regent Square to get 4 bedrooms on the second
floor. The smaller lots North of Montana will have a difficult time getting 3 bedrooms, even with shared
bathrooms. The Sunset Park homes, with smaller lots, will have even more trouble building a standard home. I do not
think this is the desired goal of the city, nor the goal of our neighbors who are fighting to preserve their sun and their
privacy. I can assure you, if the coverage is reduced to 45%, we will all be back here in 12‐24 months, except that the
next time the angry people will be the homeowners that have spent a lot of money and are still unable to build a home
that you can build anywhere else in America.
The more I worked on this issue, the more I realized that the experts that had been drafted by the planning commission
staff to come up with reasonable solutions, and the planning commission's initial decisions, were correct: a minimum of
50% coverage, in conjunction with the very strong changes to the setbacks, stepbacks, balcony space, and height limits ‐
will create neighborhoods and homes that work for the whole community.
Thank you,
Tim Symington
Item 7-F 10/22/19
73 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 4:03 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: NOMA Supports R 1 Staff Recommendations, Item 7-F
From: Noma Boardmember [mailto:nomaboard@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 9:03 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer
<Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>;
kevin.mckewon@smgov.net; annamaria.jara@smgov.net; David Martin <David.Martin@SMGOV.NET>; Tony Kim
<Tony.Kim@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: NOMA Supports R 1 Staff Recommendations, Item 7‐F
To: City Council
From: Board of Directors, NOMA
Re: 10/22/19 Item 7-F – R1 (single-unit Residential Development Standards Update
The NOMA Board has been concerned with the persistent McMansionization of the R-1
neighborhoods in our City ans been working with other neighborhood organizations for more than two
years on mitigating the impact of such new construction in these areas. We appreciate and thank the
City Council, The Planning Commission, and the staff for their work and efforts on this issue. NOMA
members have participated in the Technical Working Group and the stakeholder meetings that have
taken place earlier this year.
Item 7-F 10/22/19
74 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
2
The LUCE values our residential neighborhoods as one of most vital and distinguishing features of
our city and sets out the goal of protecting them. That protection has never been more important than
now.
NOMA supports the Planning Commission's decisions at its August meeting and the
recommendations of the staff report to curb the excesses of recent constructions and maintain our
neighborhoods' quality of life. These recommendations include:
1. Maximum Parcel Coverage (exclusive of ADUs) of:
a. 45% aggregate for new 2-story homes
b. 50% for new one-story homes
c. 55% for existing on-story homes with one-story additions
2. Maximum Height:
a. 28 feet for pitched roofs
b. 23 feet for flat roofs
3. Increased front and side upper-story step-backs
Sustainability is a guiding principle for Santa Monica, yet mansionization of the R1 neighborhoods
militates against that, as it's been shown to impede sunlight and air circulation to neighbors and to
reduce green areas and open space. This is especially a concern in NOMA as there are no parks in
our neighborhood and families muse use available yard space for their children's play.
smnoma.org
NOMAboard@gmail.com
Item 7-F 10/22/19
75 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
3
Item 7-F 10/22/19
76 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 4:04 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: TONIGHT'S COUNCIL MEETING: Comments re: R-1 Building Restrictions Zoning Ordinance
Importance:High
From: s007 [mailto:s007@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 11:40 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: TONIGHT'S COUNCIL MEETING: Comments re: R‐1 Building Restrictions Zoning Ordinance
Importance: High
Dr. Charles Schwartz
843 22nd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90403
310.990.2764
S007@ix.netcom.com
Santa Monica City Council,
Thank you for the opportunity to convey my thoughts and suggestions regarding the further R‐1 zoning building
restrictions proposed ordinance. We are unavailable to attend the 22 October Council proceedings that will allow for
public comment on this proposed ordinance, since the agenda item was rescheduled from its original date last month.
I have been a resident of Santa Monica since 1976. I raised my son in this City and he attended Santa Monica public
schools. I witnessed first‐hand how Santa Monica went through this exercise and established the current R‐1 building
zoning restrictions in 1999. That fight caused a great deal of ill feelings between neighbors, which can and should be
avoided now, particularly because there are alternate solutions that could avoid this kind of conflict.
We have enough fiscal problems in Santa Monica without restricting the wealth of residents willing to reside here. The
ability of the city to float voter approved bond encumbrances among residents, amongst other fiscal stability
opportunities, are at stake.
We have existing serious fiscal problems, and there are many on the horizon. We therefore need to afford realistic
solutions. Our short list of pending fiscal issues includes:
A vast and growing retirement pension liability; The City of Santa Monica is now the largest employer in Santa
Monica. Fortunately we are able to offer generous salaries and better than average benefits (very costly, but
necessary).
Item 7-F 10/22/19
77 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
2
With ever‐increasing pension liabilities, the ability to adequately address basic city service needs will shrink in
the absence of further growth.
Our sidewalks are currently in terrible shape and in need of repair and/or replacement.
Our public buildings, schools, overpasses and public parks all need help, with some even requiring structural
retrofitting and many require serious updating.
Water treatment, sewers including effluent filtering and conditioning is in need of investment.
Our high crime reality is negatively impacting our very quality of life as well, with serious crime way out of hand;
We need additional police and related policing facilities and equipment.
Substance abuse and mental health issues, part of the underlying causes leading to too many people on the
street, are costly to support while the increasing homelessness crisis is making it difficult for our hotels and retail
businesses to succeed. It is now a fact that many SM residents shop outside SM because SM retail sales tax is
too high.
Our kids are no longer safe enough to go to our parks and play grounds without adult accompaniment. Even
adults are often intimidated and prefer not to visit our parks.
Since this is our short list... I am stopping here.
Suggestions regarding further building zoning restrictions currently under consideration by the City Council:
1) Grandfather‐in existing homeowners’ building rights so that they are able to develop their properties, if they so
choose, according to the existing R‐1 building code ordinance established in 1999. New codes will only affect owners
purchasing on or after the effective date of the new R‐1 zoning ordinance.
2) Allow any homeowner that wishes to restrict building codes further the opportunity to adjust their deeds in the
form of legal deed restriction whereby subsequent owners will be further code restricted.
Thank you,
Charles Schwartz
Item 7-F 10/22/19
78 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 4:04 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: TONIGHT'S COUNCIL MEETING: Comments re: R-1 Building Restrictions Zoning Ordinance
Importance:High
From: s007 [mailto:s007@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 11:40 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: TONIGHT'S COUNCIL MEETING: Comments re: R‐1 Building Restrictions Zoning Ordinance
Importance: High
Dr. Charles Schwartz
843 22nd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90403
310.990.2764
S007@ix.netcom.com
Santa Monica City Council,
Thank you for the opportunity to convey my thoughts and suggestions regarding the further R‐1 zoning building
restrictions proposed ordinance. We are unavailable to attend the 22 October Council proceedings that will allow for
public comment on this proposed ordinance, since the agenda item was rescheduled from its original date last month.
I have been a resident of Santa Monica since 1976. I raised my son in this City and he attended Santa Monica public
schools. I witnessed first‐hand how Santa Monica went through this exercise and established the current R‐1 building
zoning restrictions in 1999. That fight caused a great deal of ill feelings between neighbors, which can and should be
avoided now, particularly because there are alternate solutions that could avoid this kind of conflict.
We have enough fiscal problems in Santa Monica without restricting the wealth of residents willing to reside here. The
ability of the city to float voter approved bond encumbrances among residents, amongst other fiscal stability
opportunities, are at stake.
We have existing serious fiscal problems, and there are many on the horizon. We therefore need to afford realistic
solutions. Our short list of pending fiscal issues includes:
A vast and growing retirement pension liability; The City of Santa Monica is now the largest employer in Santa
Monica. Fortunately we are able to offer generous salaries and better than average benefits (very costly, but
necessary).
Item 7-F 10/22/19
79 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
2
With ever‐increasing pension liabilities, the ability to adequately address basic city service needs will shrink in
the absence of further growth.
Our sidewalks are currently in terrible shape and in need of repair and/or replacement.
Our public buildings, schools, overpasses and public parks all need help, with some even requiring structural
retrofitting and many require serious updating.
Water treatment, sewers including effluent filtering and conditioning is in need of investment.
Our high crime reality is negatively impacting our very quality of life as well, with serious crime way out of hand;
We need additional police and related policing facilities and equipment.
Substance abuse and mental health issues, part of the underlying causes leading to too many people on the
street, are costly to support while the increasing homelessness crisis is making it difficult for our hotels and retail
businesses to succeed. It is now a fact that many SM residents shop outside SM because SM retail sales tax is
too high.
Our kids are no longer safe enough to go to our parks and play grounds without adult accompaniment. Even
adults are often intimidated and prefer not to visit our parks.
Since this is our short list... I am stopping here.
Suggestions regarding further building zoning restrictions currently under consideration by the City Council:
1) Grandfather‐in existing homeowners’ building rights so that they are able to develop their properties, if they so
choose, according to the existing R‐1 building code ordinance established in 1999. New codes will only affect owners
purchasing on or after the effective date of the new R‐1 zoning ordinance.
2) Allow any homeowner that wishes to restrict building codes further the opportunity to adjust their deeds in the
form of legal deed restriction whereby subsequent owners will be further code restricted.
Thank you,
Charles Schwartz
Item 7-F 10/22/19
80 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Philippe <philippe@cteinc.net>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 4:15 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:R1 Update
Attachments:philippe.vcf
Hello,
There should not be a one size fits all for remodeling, given how small some of the original homes are on large lots.
I do not want mcmansions in SM, but this proposal should consider the current interim ordinance of 50%.
--
Thanks,
Philippe Shepnick
Item 7-F 10/22/19
81 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ross Fehrman
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 4:24 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Planning meeting tonight - urgent comment
Please see the below comment.
Ross Fehrman, AICP
Associate Planner
City Planning Division
1685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 458‐8341 | Ross.Fehrman@smgov.net
www.smgov.net/planning
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Caroline Perry <caroline.perry@me.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 4:18 PM
To: Ross Fehrman <Ross.Fehrman@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: AJ USA <ajinlondon@gmail.com>
Subject: Planning meeting tonight ‐ urgent comment
Hi Ross,
As residents and homeowners in the 90402 neighborhood, we are appalled that the city council is once again working to
rescind our rights with regards to building on the lots that WE own! To suggest a further restriction on building size
limits is outrageous, many of us are hard‐working families who hoped one day to save enough to extend our homes to
accommodate our young families. In our case we have outgrown our home and need additional square footage for our
three young children, yet if implemented, the proposed, ridiculously strict limits force us to move out of the city that we
pay so dearly to live in, and where our children attend local schools. The vast majority of homeowners are against this
measure, and yet the council ignores our wishes?
We expect an acknowledgment of this email and confirmation that our comments have been shared at tonight’s
meeting, which we are unable to attend.
Regards,
Caroline & AJ Perry
Item 7-F 10/22/19
82 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Clerk Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 4:35 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: SM R1 Ordinance Response ( ARB Representative to R1 Task Force)
Attachments:45%_parcel coverage.jpg; 50%_parcel coverage.jpg; ARB SM R1 Ordinance 10.22.19.pdf
From: Barbara Kaplan <barbara@kckarchitects.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 3:11 PM
To: Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Fwd: SM R1 Ordinance Response ( ARB Representative to R1 Task Force)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Barbara Kaplan <barbara@kckarchitects.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 3:08 PM
Subject: SM R1 Ordinance Response ( ARB Representative to R1 Task Force)
To: <gleam.davis@smgov.net>, <anamaria.jara@smgov.net>, Councilmember Kevin McKeown
<Kevin.McKeown@smgov.net>, <Sue.Himmelrich@smgov.net>, <terry.oday@smgov.net>, <greg.morena@smgov.net>,
<ted.winterer@smgov.net>
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore O’Day, and Councilmembers:
I am the Architectural Review Boardmember representative on the R‐ 1 Task Force, a resident and practicing architect in
Santa Monica. I am writing in response to the Draft Ordinance to amend the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance related
to Development Standards in the R1 District. Specifically I want to address issues of parcel coverage and upper story
stepbacks. I understand that with the requirements to allow ADU’s, single family homeowners are concerned about
density and privacy.
In regards to the Parcel Coverage table showing maximum parcel coverage for a Two – story structure, the parcel
coverage is limited to 45%, the sum of first story and second story parcel coverage. This number was determined by a
group of residents concerned about density in a neighborhood where parcels are generally 9,000 sf to 12,000 sf. It is also
in response to the proliferation of mega mansion prototypes being developed across the city with prescriptive forms and
styles that maximize profit for those development companies. However, this does not work for Sunset Park, where lots
are typically 5000 sf to 8,000 sf. Seventy percent of these lots are under 7,000 sf. Generally, density is higher in this
neighborhood. If development were limited to 45%, referencing attached diagrams with proposed stepbacks, it will be
tough to build more than two small bedrooms and two small baths at the upper level, given that a percentage will be
taken up by circulation and mechanical requirements. (Please see attached diagrams). Although this is livable, it is not
particularly family friendly or equitable across Santa Monica. A 50% parcel coverage suggested by staff would be more
acceptable, and may allow for an additional bedroom or study at the second level in the Sunset Park neighborhood.
Additionally, the stepbacks proposed are prescriptive, just as the formula development homes and will not necessarily
lead to better Architecture, or even a responsive solution to the unique character of the mix of styles in the
Item 7-F 10/22/19
83 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
2
neighborhoods. This needs more study by staff or a consultant in order to understand the consequences and change of
neighborhood character. Conservation zones were suggested in the LUCE which were not adequately explored, and the
intention was not necessarily a prescriptive formal solution across the city.
I appreciate your time and hope that this dialogue regarding the R‐1 zoning can be evaluated with further in depth
study. It is too big a step at one time, and has not been adequately tested. Not everyone will be building an ADU.
Sincerely,
Barbara Kaplan
2419 Pier Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 90405
310‐503‐8475
KCK Architects
2526 18th St
Santa Monica CA. 90405
‐‐
Barbara Kaplan | KCK ARCHITECTS
2526 Eighteenth Street Santa Monica, CA 90405
310 | 452 | 7505
www.kckarchitects.com
‐‐
Barbara Kaplan | KCK ARCHITECTS
2526 Eighteenth Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310 | 452 | 7505
www.kckarchitects.com
Item 7-F 10/22/19
84 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Caroline Hedley <caroline.hedley@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 4:42 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:URGENT comment for tonight’s planning meeting
As residents and homeowners in the 90402 neighborhood, we are appalled that the city council is once again working to
rescind our rights with regards to building on the lots that WE own! To suggest a further restriction on building size
limits is outrageous, many of us are hard‐working families who hoped one day to save enough to extend our homes to
accommodate our young families. In our case we have outgrown our home and need additional square footage for our
three young children, yet if implemented, the proposed, ridiculously strict limits force us to move out of the city that we
pay so dearly to live in, and where our children attend local schools. The vast majority of homeowners are against this
measure, and yet the council ignores our wishes?
We expect an acknowledgment of this email and confirmation that our comments have been shared at tonight’s
meeting, which we are unable to attend.
Regards,
Caroline & AJ Perry
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-F 10/22/19
85 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Greg Chou <gregorychou@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 4:48 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Santa Monica R1 Update
Via Email
10‐22‐2019
From: Gregory Chou
Re: R1 update
Dear City Council members of Santa Monica:
My wife and I are strongly opposed to the reduction of parcel coverage to 45% maximum, as we feel this limit is overly
restrictive and hampers the housing flexibility needed by today's growing and multi‐generational families.
Families are getting bigger and multiple generations have begun living together under one roof; and as such, the housing
stock required needs the space to accommodate elderly relatives and young children in the same home. A 45% parcel
coverage limitation is too restrictive by today's standards, and is simple a reactive move by the city council to placate a
minority of the SM residents.
Furthermore, the city has already spent time collecting the recommendations from 3 separate working groups ‐‐ City
Staff, Professional architects, and an open public input working group ‐‐ and all 3 groups recommended at least a 50%
parcel coverage limit. So why now is City Council disregarding all this information and pushing for a lower 45% coverage
maximum? This seems like a counter‐intuitive move to the data and also doesn't seem to represent what the residents
of Santa Monica want.
Please reconsider the 45% parcel coverage limitation and we propose a minimum of 50% parcel coverage, with no
limitation between 1st and 2nd floor allocation.
Thank you.
Regards,
Gregory Chou
Item 7-F 10/22/19
86 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Brooks Dunn <brooks@dunnarchitecture.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 5:09 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:R1 Update
I am writing to comment on the proposed R1 Update. Specifically, I would like to speak on the proposed 23’ limit which
is described both as a wall height limit [inferring that the limit is plate height as in Beverly Hills] and as a flat roof limit. At
minimum, I think you need to clarify where the measurement is taken.
23’ does not allow for structure [assume 14” for floor or roof framing], ductwork [10”‐18” for the duct + 4” to frame the
soffit] and floor to ceiling heights that are consistent with the current standard for new construction [12’ on the ground
floor and 10’ on the second]. Homes built to this height limit will either be slab on grade structures [more difficult to
maintain over the life of the building] or have basements and a height limit this low may encourage roof top mechanical
ducts. I wish the planning staff would consider construction requirements when setting these limits.
Lastly, I’ve always appreciated the maximum permitted envelope approach that Santa Monica has taken with regard to
the R1 zone. The regulation provides every lot access to light and air without unduly regulating the massing or style of
the building. As written, the 23’ wall height limit is likely a requirement that two story structures have a sloped roof.
While that may be a desirable outcome for some, indeed some of my clients prefer a sloped roof, it’s simply not what
everyone wants. I believe the planning code should regulate mass, height, area and setback. In this case, by effectively
requiring that a second story has a sloped roof, the proposed regulation strays into aesthetics. Perhaps the council could
look at a slightly higher limit [25’ for flat roofs] or a larger setback on the second floor for a structure with a flat roof
rather than effectively mandating the slope.
I appreciate your time and consideration.
Brooks Dunn
AIA | LEED AP BD+C
Principal
Dunn Architecture Studio
929 Colorado Ave
Santa Monica, CA 90401
310.247.0171 x107
www.dunnarchitecture.com
Item 7-F 10/22/19
87 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Regula Ziegler <regula@americaconnections.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 5:20 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:10/22/19 agenda item 7-F-R 1 update
Dear Members of our City Council,
As a 50 year Santa Monica resident, a 48 year Sunset Park resident, and a former Sunset Park Board Member, I agree
and support the results and recommendations of Friends of Sunset Park.
Regula K. Ziegler
Item 7-F 10/22/19
88 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ken Scopp <ken@scopp.net>
Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 4:37 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:House Development Size
Dear City Council, I am opposed to the new reduction to 45% of the lot for new construction in the
North of Montana neighborhood. This new rule is under the 55% that is considered the norm.
Punishing current homeowners is not the way to improve the neighborhood. Please consider
enforcement of the current rules to control the house size.
Thank you,
Ken Scopp
Kenneth N. Scopp, CFP, RFC, CLTC
CA Lic.#0486957
Scopp & Associates, inc.
12121 Wilshire Blvd. #1100
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Member: First Financial Resources, Forum 400, International Association of Registered
Financial Consultants, MDRT
“The avoidance of taxes is the only intellectual pursuit that still carries any reward.”
- John Maynard Keynes
A PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL PLANNING PRACTICE
310-893-6090... Fax 310-893-6099
EMAIL: ken@scopp.net
www.scoppassociates.com
ASK US ABOUT OTHER FINANCIAL SERVICES WE PROVIDE!
Your Financial Resource for Personal & Business Planning
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is neither
intended nor written to be used, and cannot be used, to avoid penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or to
promote, market or recommend to anyone a transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
THE FOREGOING DOCUMENTS ARE CONFIDENTIAL
This message and the foregoing documents are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity to which they are addressed. It
may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
Item 7-F 10/22/19
89 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
2
please notify me immediately by replying to this email or by telephone (310) 893-6090 and delete the original transmission and its
attachments without reading them or saving them to disk or otherwise. Thank you.
Item 7-F 10/22/19
90 of 90 Item 7-F 10/22/19
R1 Development
Standards Update
CITY PLANNING
Tony Kim &
Ross Fehrman
October 22, 2019
Why Are We Here?
•In February 2018, City Council adopted an Interim Zoning
Ordinance (IZO) for the R1 zone district in response to
concerns raised in the community regarding the
incompatible character and scale of new developments with
the City’s single-unit residential neighborhoods.
•Council directed staff to research and draft a comprehensive
update of the R1 Development Standards and associated
sections of the Zoning Ordinance and extended the IZO until
the end 2019.
•The proposed R1 Ordinance includes reductions to the
maximum allowable parcel coverage and height of buildings,
additional upper-story stepbacks, incentives to retain
existing homes, and more user-friendliness.
Purpose of Update
•Re-evaluate the R1 development standards to address the size of new
home construction in relation to the existing neighborhood context and
scale with the focus on physical development standards
•Incentivize the retention of existing homes
•Make development standards more user-friendly
R1 Update Process
•Technical Working Group established to tap into professional expertise and insight to help
understand and gather initial feedback regarding current development standards.
•Architects
•Contractors
•Design Professionals
•Neighborhood Association Representatives
Technical
Working Group
Community
Open Houses
Planning
Commission
City
Council
Te chnical Working Group
Working Sessions:•January 30, 2019 –Kick-Off Meeting
•March 7, 2019 –Buildable Envelope
•Parcel Coverage
•Building Height
•Setbacks
•Stepbacks
•March 19, 2019
•Projections
•Height Exceptions
•Upper-Story Outdoor Space
•Basements/Lightwells
•Parking•April 2, 2019
•Hillside Development
•Design Review
•Incentives for Retention of Existing Homes•April 10, 2019 –Summary Meeting
R1 Update Process
Technical
Working Group
Community
Open Houses
Planning
Commission
City
Council
•Community Open Houses
•Over 6,500 invitations to all R1 property owners
•Advertisement in the Santa Monica Daily Press
•Planning interest email
•Approximately 150 attendees
Community Open Houses
•Three identical opportunities:
•May 18th –Saturday
•May 21st –Day
•May 21st –Evening
•Seven stations:
•Parcel Coverage
•Height
•Setbacks & Stepbacks
•Upper-Level Outdoor Space
•Parking
•Retention of Existing Homes
•Other
R1 Update Process
Technical
Working Group
Community
Open Houses
Planning
Commission
City
Council
June 19, 2019 Study Session
•Reviewed public input from the technical working group and community open houses
•Provided feedback and direction
August 7, 2019
•Review proposed changes
•Made recommendation to City Council
Next Steps…
Te chnical
Working Group
Community
Open Houses
Planning
Commission
City
Council
October 22, 2019
•Review and adoption of R1 Update
Upcoming
•R1 guidebook and outreach
•R1 hillside development standards
•ADU standards
Proposed R1 and
Related Development Standards
•Size of new home construction
•Incentives for the retention of existing homes
•User-friendly standards
•Other
Size of New Home Construction
•Parcel Coverage
•Height
•Upper-Story Stepbacks
•Upper-Story Outdoor Space
Implementation of Development Standards -
Buildable Envelope
1.Vacant parcel
2.Setbacks
6.Second story massing
3.Building height
4.Buildable envelope
5.First story parcel
coverage
9.Typical dwelling unit
massing
7.Second story parcel
coverage & stepbacks
8.Structure within
buildable envelope
Parcel Coverage –
Proposed Development Standards
Building Height –
Proposed Development Standards
Upper-Story Stepbacks –
Proposed Development Standards
Upper-Story Outdoor Space –
Proposed Development Standards
•No aggregate limit
•Individual size limitation based on parcel size
•Setbacks for larger spaces and roof decks
Incentives for the Retention of Existing Homes
•Existing Incentives
•Modifications (Zoning Administrator &ARB)and Variances
•Reduced setback requirements for additions to structure over 18’on
parcel less than 50’in width
•Proposed Additional Incentives
•55%parcel coverage for existing one-story structures with one-story
additions
•Removal of the requirement to update parking for additions
•Expand the provision allowing building additions to extend into
minimum side setbacks
User-Friendly Development Standards
•Standardized Development Standards Citywide
•Determining Parcel Coverage
•Accessory Buildings & Structures, Height Exceptions, and
Projections
•Basements, Lightwells, and Excavation
•R1 Design Review
Standardized Development Standards Citywide
Other
•Parking
•Solar access
•Reduction of permit fees and requirements for additions
and remodels
Next Steps
•Implementation and timing of new ordinance
•R1 guidebook and outreach
•Hillside Development
•Accessory Dwelling Units
Parcel Coverage
•One-story –50%
•Existing one-story with a one-story addition –55%
•Two-Story –45% aggregate
•Additional parcel coverage for parcels less than 5,000 SF
•ADUs exempt
Building Height
•28’ height maximum
•23’ wall height limit
•Standard 45-degree upper-story stepback above 23’
Upper Story Stepbacks
•Front
•Larger stepback based on parcel size
•Minimum and maximum distances for compliance based on
parcel dimensions
•Sides
•Larger stepbacks based on parcel size
•Minimum and maximum distances for compliance based on
parcel dimensions
Upper-Story Outdoor Space
•No aggregate, but individual size limitation based on parcel size
•Additional setbacks for spaces larger than 100 SF and roof decks
Incentives
•Removal of parking update requirement for additions
•Expansion of provision allowing of building additions into
nonconforming side setbacks
User-Friendly
•Standardized development standards citywide
•Determining parcel coverage revisions
•Accessory buildings & structures, height exceptions, and
projections
•Basements, lightwells, and excavation
•NOMA included in ARB hillside review
Parking
•Enclosed garage not required
•Parking located behind front facade
Summary
Public Comment
R1 Zone District Parcel Sizes
Parcel Coverage –
Proposed Development Standards
Hillside Development
Conceptual Framework
•Create a new definition of “hillside development”.This definition
would establish a new threshold for design review and ability to use
development standards specific to hillside properties.
•Require a slope analysis for hillside development, which must be
prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor.
•Exclude steep areas from the parcel area that may be used in the
parcel coverage calculation (based on a slope analysis).
•Consider whether areas with extreme slope on properties should be
restricted from development except for landscaping and small
accessory structures.
•Allow accessory structures up to certain size threshold to be exempt
from design review.
•Limits on excavation.
Parcel Coverage
Parcel Coverage –
Community Input
Parcel Coverage:Number of
Votes:Percentage:
40%29 26%
45%5 4%
50%13 12%
55%10 9%
60%28 25%
65%11 10%
70%8 7%
75%2 2%
80%+6 5%
Total:112 100%
Parcel Coverage
Divided Between
1st & 2nd Story:
Number of
Votes:Percentage:
40% / 21%39 39.4%
35% / 26%45 45.5%
31% / 30%15 15.1%
Total:99 100%
What is an appropriate amount
of parcel coverage?
How should parcel coverage be
split between the first and
second floors?
ADUs Number of
Votes:Percentage:
Exempt 63 58%
Not Exempt 46 46%
Total:109 100%
Should ADUs be exempt from
parcel coverage?
Building
Height
Building Height –
Community Input
What is an appropriate height
limit?
Building Height:Number of Votes:Percentage:
Below 28’15 16%
28’45 47%
Above 28’35 37%
Total:95 100%
Should a flat roof have a different
height limit?
Building Height:Number of
Votes:Percentage:
Below 28’51 51%
28’29 29%
Above 28’20 20%
Total:100 100%
Setbacks & Stepbacks
Setbacks & Stepbacks–
Community Input
Should minimum setbacks be
aggregate or symmetrical?
How much upper-story stepbacks
should be required?
Setbacks Number of
Votes:Percentage:
Aggregate 81 82%
Symmetrical 18 18%
Total:99 100%
Stepbacks Number of
Votes:Percentage:
Less 45 42.4%
Current Standard 15 14.2%
More 46 43.4%
Total:106 100%
Upper-Story
Outdoor Space
Upper-Story Outdoor Space –
Community Input
What is an appropriate limit for upper-story outdoor space?
Upper-Story Outdoor space Number of Votes:Percentage:
Less than 400 SF 21 23.5%
400 SF 24 27%
More than 400 SF 23 26%
No Limit 21 23.5%
Total:89 100%
Parking
Parking –
Community Input
Should enclosed garage be
required?
Where should parking be
allowed?
Enclosed Garage Number of
Votes:Percentage:
Yes 40 40%
No 59 60%
Total:99 100%
Parking Location Number of
Votes:Percentage:
Rear Half of Lot 33 38%
Behind Front Setback 24 27%
No Restriction 31 35%
Total:88 100%
Retention of
Existing Homes
Retention of Existing Homes –
Community Input
Incentive Number of
Votes:Percentage:
Allow Continuation of Non-Conforming Setbacks
in Certain Situations
49 20%
Allow Continuation of Non-Conforming Heights in
Certain Situations
11 4%
Allow Additions without Requiring Parking to be
Updated
53 21%
Create Opportunities for Additional Modifications
to Development Standards
32 13%
Create an Easier Review Process for Development
Standard Modifications
59 24%
Allow Additional Parcel Coverage for Single-Story
Dwellings
49 18%
Total:250 100%