Item 9-B
COUNCIL MEETING: June 16, 1998 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Review Proposed Revisions to the Residential Development Standards in the R2 and R3 Districts Pertaining to the Development of Projects with State Density Bonus Units and Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution of Intention to Amend the Zoning Ordinance in Accordance with Staff Recommendations
INTRODUCTION
This report provides information on the City's evaluation of modifications to the residential development standards as contained in the zoning ordinance pertaining to the development of projects with State Density Bonus units, and recommends that the City Council review the proposed revisions and direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Intention to amend the Zoning Ordinance in accordance with the recommendations.
BACKGROUND
In conjunction with adoption of the 1998-2003 Housing Element Update, the City is considering changes to the development standards for multi-family residential buildings in the R2 and R3 Districts. The changes are being considered to ensure that the zoning standards in these districts do not act as a potential constraint on the construction of density bonus units.
In April 1995, the City initiated the 1998-2003 Housing Element Update. As part of this Update, HR&A analyzed whether certain of the City's programs operated as actual or potential governmental constraints on new housing development within the meaning of Government Code Section 65583(a)(4). As one aspect of this review, an analysis was conducted related to the maximum achievable building envelope in the City's R2 District. The standard R2 lot in Santa Monica is 7,500 square feet, providing five dwelling units by right. When a developer proposes to include a low income unit as one of these five units, this triggers State and local density bonus provisions authorizing an increased density of 25 percent in addition to the five base units. Consequently, a total of seven units would be authorized on the site. However, HR&A's analysis demonstrated that under certain development scenarios the current building envelope and parking standards effectively limit the maximum achievable number of units below the number that are authorized. This analysis assumed a development comprised of six two bedroom market rate units of about 1,200 square feet, if apartments, or 1,400 square feet, of condominiums, and one low-income unit. These bedroom size and square footage assumptions were based on the typical development project in the City and HR&A's assessment that the average experienced developer would choose to not take advantage of the full density bonus, and therefore not develop all the units authorized.
As a means of eliminating the potential constraint imposed on projects with State Density Bonus Units, the Draft Housing Element includes policies recommending revisions to the development standards in order to accommodate the State Density Bonus Units. (Attachment A)
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
The City enlisted the professional services of the following four architects to evaluate the existing development standards and propose modifications: William D. Brantley Architects; Kanner Architects; Koning Eizenberg Architecture; and, Ralph Mechur Architects. These architects worked independently in developing their initial schematic designs for multifamily residential buildings to maximize the density permitted under existing zoning standards including State Density Bonus units. The architects and City staff then worked together to develop the proposed modifications to the development standards.
The analyses concentrated on modifications to multifamily residential (R2, R3 and R4 Districts) development and parking standards which would facilitate utilization of the State Density Bonus provisions on a typical single lot (50' x 150'). The consultant architects assessed proposed changes to parking standards (e.g., parking stall size, deletion of the guest parking requirement) and/or the development envelope (e.g., larger lot coverage, reduced unexcavated side yards, third floor with additional setbacks) as applied to seven 2-bedroom units on a standard R-2 site (i.e., 5 by right, one of which is a low-income unit, and two density bonus units).
The consultant architects also reviewed existing R3 and R4 zoning standards and prepared schematic designs similar to that prepared for the R2 scenario for a prototypical development on a R3 and R4 lot. Their analysis indicated that modifications are necessary in the R3 District. Revisions to the development standards affecting single lot sites in the R4 District were evaluated, but not developed further because of the limited number of sites involved. Attachment B provides a summary of the proposed modifications which are described below.
Proposed Modifications to Building Envelope
The consultant architects and staff have reached consensus on the following five modifications related to building envelope standards in the R2 and R3 zones.
Stories and Height. The primary modification of the development standards is to create a building envelope which provides design flexibility. To accomplish this, it is recommended that there be no limit on the number of stories in projects which include State Density Bonus units, thereby providing additional square footage for project development. It is also recommended that the existing R2 height limit of 30 ft. be raised to 34 ft. (for walls and flat roofs), and the existing R3 height limit of 40 ft. be raised to 44 ft. This change will only increase the actual permitted height of structures in the R2 and R3 zone 6 inches, since the code currently allows a 42" projection for parapets. This height increase of 6 inches will only minimally increase the mass of the building, and impact on neighboring properties. This modification will also allow developers the flexibility to incorporate an additional story into the project without the need for customized building materials. Under the proposed standards all other projections, including those for mechanical equipment, stairwells, elevator shafts, chimneys etc. will be required to be measured from the current height limit of 30 ft. in the R2 zone and 40 ft. in the R3 zone.
Additional Height Allowance to Accommodate Pitched Roofs and Mezzanines. To allow the use of pitched or curved roofs, and to accommodate mezzanines on upper levels, a height allowance above the proposed 34 ft. is needed in the R2 District. It is recommended that the maximum height for a curved or pitched roof be 40 ft. with a provision that no portion of the building shall intersect a plane commencing at 34 ft in height at the minimum side yard setback and extending at a 20 degree angle from the vertical toward the interior of the site. This sloped envelope prevents additional building mass at the exterior of the building where it may cause shadowing on neighboring uses, yet allows additional height in the center of the building which can be used to incorporate mezzanines into the upper level units. This minimal increase in square footage will increase the marketability of the units which may have a positive economic impact on the project. It is also recommended that any portion of the building above 34 ft. in height be setback an additional 20 ft. from the front setback line. With this setback, the impact of the additional building height on the surrounding neighborhood is negligible in that the increased building mass will not be perceptible from the street. No additional height for a pitched or curved roof is proposed for the R3 District.
Lot Coverage. The consultant architect's schematic designs exceeded 50% parcel coverage. The Zoning Code allows projects with State Density Bonus units to apply for a variance to allow 60% parcel coverage. It is recommended that the maximum parcel coverage be increased from 50% to 60% by right for all projects with State Density Bonus units in the R2 and R3 Districts. It is also recommended that this provision apply to 100% affordable projects in these zones.
Side yard Setbacks. To improve access and private open space required for each unit in a density bonus project, the consultant architects have recommended that the side yard requirements be modified to allow increased design flexibility. The side yard requirement for a three-story building on a standard lot in the R2 District is 8 ft. on each side, and 9 ft. on each side for a four-story building on a standard lot in the R3 District. The architects propose that the formula which determines the side yard be modified to allow the side yards to be combined and distributed unevenly along either side, with an absolute minimum and a combined minimum equal to that currently required. Therefore, in the R2 District, a total of 16 ft. of combined side yard would be maintained at all points along a 50 foot wide lot for a three story building, and no side yard would be permitted to be less than 6 feet. Similarly, in the R3 District, a four story building on a 50 foot wide lot would require a total combined side yard of 18 feet with a minimum of 7 feet.
This revision is proposed only for lots with widths between 50 and 75 feet. No modification is needed for lots with widths of less than 50 feet; the Code provision for these lots is adequate. Similarly, this modification need not be applied to lots with widths greater than 75 feet since the minimum side yards currently required by Code are adequate to provide the design flexibility necessary to accommodate circulation and private open space.
Upper Level Stepbacks. To prevent building mass above the first level from being closer to the neighboring properties than currently permitted, the second level stepback requirements are proposed to be modified to require that the building be set back at the upper levels to a minimum which is equal to half the total side yard requirement. This provision results in upper level setbacks that are no closer to the side property line than would be permitted for a project without State Density Bonus units. An additional provision would be added to ensure that no portions of the building be allowed to cantilever over the ground floor, except within the rear yard.
Proposed Modifications to the Parking Requirements
Parking Requirements. The number of parking spaces required for a seven unit project [7 units= 2 parking spaces/unit, plus 1 guest space/5 units = 15 parking spaces required] in an R2 zone could not be reasonably accommodated on site either within a subterranean garage, or with surface parking accessed from the alley. Given the importance of providing adequate parking for each unit within the project, staff does not feel that reducing the parking requirement for the units would be appropriate. Therefore, staff considered the ramifications of eliminating the guest parking requirements and determined that its removal in the case of density bonus projects would have negligible impact on project residents, their guests or the neighborhood. Therefore, it is recommended that the requirement for guest parking spaces be eliminated for projects in the R2 District which include State Density Bonus units.
With the flexibility afforded by an additional story in the R3 District, a four story, eight unit project can accommodate all the required parking on site. The rear half of the lot can be devoted to surface level parking without sacrificing critical floor area. Given this and the fact that neighborhoods within the R3 District are more dense with greater on-street parking needs, no modifications to the current parking requirements are proposed.
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Housing Commission
The Housing Commission reviewed the proposed modifications to the residential development standards at a public hearing on February 19, 1998. The Housing Commission supports the proposed modifications as presented by staff and suggested that staff continue to educate community members concerning these proposed modifications. In response a public workshop was held as further described below.
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed modifications to the residential development standards at a public hearing on February 25, 1998. The Commission considered the comments of the Housing Commission and public testimony in their deliberations and recommend that the modifications to the development standards be considered by the City Council as presented by staff. The Planning Commission also recommended that a public workshop be held to respond to public inquiries and to allow additional public input on this and other related Housing Element issues. The Public Workshop was held on March 26, 1998 and was attended by approximately forty people. Questions and issues raised at the workshop are summarized in Attachment E.
NOTICING
This public hearing was noticed by mailing flyers to all people on the City's "Housing Element List" which includes the mailing lists of the City's Housing Division and the Rent Control Board and other interested individuals, the City's Big List, and to other interested individuals. This public hearing was also advertised in The LA Times. A copy of the notice is attached in Attachment F.
CONCLUSION
The revised development standards are under review concomitantly with the 1998-2003 Housing Element Update, which is also scheduled for review (and adoption) by City Council on April 14, 1998. The proposed modifications to the development standards are limited to those which ensure that the development standards do not act as a potential constraint to the development of these units.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have a budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review the proposed modifications and direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Intention to amend the zoning ordinance in accordance with the recommendations.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Karen Ginsberg, Planning Manager
Laura Beck, Associate Planner
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachments (Available at the City of Santa Monica City Clerk's Office or at any of the Santa Monica Public Libraries):
A. Programs 1a and 2b of the Draft Housing Element Update
C. Prototypical R2 project with State Density Bonus Units
D. Prototypical R3 project with State Density Bonus Units