On Tuesday night, the first reading of a new housing ordinance was introduced with a wealth of shifts..
By the time the State Legislature adjourned its legislative session in August of 2024, it had passed more than 30 bills to address homelessness and the housing crisis. Several of the new laws affect the Zoning Ordinance, with several requiring revisions of the ordinance to keep Santa Monica in line with state laws.
Several of the proposed changes are also consistent with the direction being given by the city council.
Eliminating the parcel size threshold for streamlined review of housing projects
Last December, the city council directed staff to return by April 30, 2025, with an ordinance that would allow all housing projects proposed in currently non-residential zones – except for within the Bergamot Area Plan – to be processed by Administrative Approval, regardless of the size of the host parcel. The move is intended to reduce the time and costs associated with developing new housing. There are different timelines for the length of Administrative Approval depending on the size of the project.
ADUs (Granny Flats) and “Junior” ADUs (JADUs)
The state proposed changes to ADU and JADU law last year, and the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) released updated guidance on implementing the law in a handbook for cities.
Currently, Santa Monica’s ADU language states, according to a staff report, “No standard shall preclude the establishment of a detached or attached ADU with a floor area of up to 800 square feet, side and rear setbacks of at least 4′ feet, and a height of no more than 16 feet.”
The state is asking that ADU/JADUs that can come with certain kinds of properties be implemented thusly:
- For single-unit dwellings:
- One ADU and one JADU from converting existing or proposed space
- One detached, new construction, ADU with 4’ side and rear setbacks, for a total of three ADUs
- For multiple-unit dwellings:
- Conversion of existing space to 1 ADU or up to 25% the existing unit count; and
- Detached new construction with 4’ side and rear setbacks:
- Proposed Developments: 2 ADUs
- Existing Developments: Up to 8 ADUs, but cannot exceed the existing unit count.
There is also proposed language for “Bonus” ADUs and language about floor area and unit size.
Revisions to the City’s Ordinance Regarding Lot Splits and Duplexes on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Dwellings
In January, “to facilitate diverse housing choices in the City’s highest opportunity areas,” and to align with updates to new state law, the council directed staff to return with an ordinance that would amend city regulations for ministerial approval for lot splits and duplexes on single-unit parcels by:
- Removing the owner-occupancy requirement for lot splits and duplexes and clarifying that vacant or demolished parcels, as well as lots with approved demolition permits, are eligible for lot splits and duplexes
- Allowing one roof deck per unit
- Ensuring that no standard within this ordinance or the underlying zoning district shall preclude the construction of 2 units, not including ADUs, of at least 1,200 square feet each
Revisions to the Administrative Approval Criteria for Large Sites in Bergamot Zoning Districts
In February, the city council asked staff to adjust the administrative approval of housing projects within the Bergamot Area Plan to ensure feasibility, putting special attention on new street and pathway requirements.
As stated in the staff report, “Council’s direction included allowing the pedestrian pathway to be credited towards the 14% ground level open space requirement at a ratio of 1.5:1, this approach when applied to parcels two acres or less, can result in a total amount of ground level open space less than the baseline minimum 12% required for all housing projects. Since the special program is intended to achieve greater open space, staff recommends the proposed alternate approach described above of exempting these projects from the additional 2% increase in ground-level open space, and simply requiring the minimum 12%. This change would allow for greater design flexibility in site planning for these smaller-sized parcels within the program.”
Extending Expiring Permits
In February, the council asked staff to prepare an ordinance granting a two-year extension to any development, land use, or subdivision applications approved before January 6, 2025. They also asked for a one-year extension for any building permit applications submitted by that date if the project can guarantee it will meet current code requirements.
Conversion of Parcel Coverage to Floor Area
Updated state law has increasingly begun to dictate minimum guaranteed size requirements for development projects like ADUs, duplexes, and multi-unit buildings of 10 units or less. They are being established using Floor Area Ratio (FAR), which has challenged staff, given that FAR pertains to the actual living area within a dwelling and excludes non-habitable areas.
The resulting changes have redefined what was previously measured as full parcel coverage to FAR for housing projects.
LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Consistency in the City’s Residential Districts to Increase Housing Potential
When the city’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance contain an inconsistency, state law requires jurisdictions to allow for the language allowing greater density. Amendments were made to remove density caps not included in the LUCE and add a second tier of standards for housing projects.
According to the staff report, “Under current code assuming Tier 1 densities, 455 (16%) out of the total 2,768 Low-Density Residential (R2) parcels have the potential to add at least one net new unit after accounting for replacement requirements. Under the proposed amendments that apply Tier 2 densities and remove the unit caps on these R2 parcels, the number of parcels with the potential to add at least one net new unit after accounting for replacement requirements increases to 652 (24%) out of the total 2,768.”
The Council Debate
Despite being past midnight, several members of the public showed up to comment. A representative from UNITE HERE Local 11, the hotel and restaurant workers’ union, pleaded with the council not to allow new hotel developments to qualify for Administrative Approval.
Councilmember Ellis Raskin, while overall supporting the seven proposed changes, offered several amendments. While explaining that “the city has no discretion whatsoever to deny housing projects,” he recommended language that would allow, in the Administrative Approval process, “the director can deny an Administrative Approval only if the development is not in compliance with applicable development standards, except to the extent modifications or waivers have been granted pursuant to Chapter 9.43, or two, if the development would have a specific adverse impact upon the health and safety pursuant to the government code 65589.5.” He also suggested sunsetting his proposed amendment on July 1, 2030.
He also proposed language that would prevent mixed-use development that partially includes a hotel from qualifying for Administrative Approval unless some of the development also includes residences.
With regard to ADUs, he proposed that an ADU size of 1,350 square feet be allowed if the ADU includes three bedrooms.
Torosis also proposed that any owner-occupancy requirements add to their definition an owner occupancy by the beneficiary of a trust, estate, or LLC.
Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya suggested it would just be cleaner to remove the owner-occupancy requirement altogether, but said she’s also amenable to trying to find a happy medium.
Councilmember Jesse Zwick sounded displeased with the debate over owner occupancy, stating it isn’t required for developments like a row of townhouses. If a developer constructs a four-unit townhouse building, they know they’re building it for four families and not for themselves, Zwick said. He asserted that the only reason to require owner occupancy of duplexes or lot splits in single-family neighborhoods is that one doesn’t truly want that kind of housing there at all.
Zwick presented a substitute motion to strip most of Raskin’s amendments, save for the hotel exemption and health and safety conditions for rejecting Administrative Approval. Instead of allowing ADUs to reach 1,350 square feet to accommodate three bedrooms, he proposed allowing duplexes up to 1,500 square feet to achieve the same.
Raskin, who was eager for consensus, seemed open to holding back on his ADU square footage request. And for his part, Zwick agreed to the 2030 sunset provision. But he remained unrelenting about his belief that requiring any owner occupancy of duplexes and lot splits in single-family neighborhoods is a “poison pill” to that kind of housing being built.
Councilmember Dan Hall agreed with Zwick’s position on owner-occupancy requirements. He reminded his colleagues that six of the seven ran for office on the promise of delivering “missing middle” housing and that all seven publicly support the council’s stated commitment to “furthering fair housing.”
Mayor Lana Negrete argued developers aren’t delivering “missing middle” housing because they’re always going to build the most expensive housing possible to profit. She also doubted duplexes or triplexes really being for the middle class, as they would likely still cost upwards of a million dollars.
Ultimately, the council broke the motions up, passing Zwick’s substitute motion that included Raskin’s health and safety and hotel exemptions, an October 2029 sunset clause (to align with the advent of the next State Housing Element), and the 1,500 square foot duplex provision with flexibility on height. The vote was 6-1 in favor, with Negrete voting no.
2644 30th Street and 1331 Wilshire Boulevard
Staff also asked the city council to adopt resolutions to amend the Santa Monica General Plan Land Use Map for parcels located at 2644 30th Street and 1331 Wilshire Boulevard. These properties had previously been misclassified and needed to be reclassified.
Several people showed up to protest the reclassification and upzoning of 2644 30th Street on the General Plan Land Use Map, stating that the developer initiated this request because they want to take the modest building up to 85 feet in new development, something they feel is completely out of character with the neighborhood.
However, a representative from the property responded, saying they are merely trying to return to the zoning designation they had been given when the building was constructed. She argued that designating an office building R1 residential makes no sense. The owners have also stated they have no plans to redevelop the building as opponents claim.
Raskin moved to table the rezoning change, and Mayor Pro Tem Caroline Torosis seconded his amended motion. She also sought clarification on 2644 30th Street and 1331 Wilshire Boulevard, and staff revealed that the only portion of 2644 30th Street being reclassified as commercial is the office building itself, not the adjacent parking lots. They will remain R1 residential.
By a vote of 4-3, they tabled the reclassification of 2644 30th Street and 1331 Wilshire Boulevard and the last four items listed above. Hall, Zernitskaya, and Zwick voted no.
