City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025
Agenda Item: 12.A
1 of 33
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Arminé Chaparyan, Director, City Planning
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of Ordinances to (1) amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance for consistency with recent updates to State law and implement other changes, corrections, and clarifications; (2) amend Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 8.08 to extend expiration for all building permit applications complete as of January 6, 2025; (3) and amend the Official Districting Map for parcels located at 2644 30th Street and 1331 Wilshire Boulevard for consistent designations; Adoption of Resolutions to Amend the Santa Monica General Plan Land Use Map for parcels located at 2644 30th Street and 1331 Wilshire Boulevard for consistent designations 2 of 33
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding that the proposed amendments to the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 8.08, the Official Districting Map, and the General Plan Land Use Map are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act consistent with the findings set forth in the “Environmental Review” section of this Report.
2. Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance Amending the Text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance to Eliminate Parcel Size Threshold for Streamlined Review of Housing Projects, Increase the Maximum Square Footage for Accessory Dwelling Units, Revise Provisions Related to Ministerially Approved Lot Splits and Duplexes on Parcels Zoned Single-Unit Residential, Adjust the Criteria for Streamlined Review of Housing Projects on Large Sites Within Bergamot Zoning Districts, Provide Extensions for Projects Approved prior to January 6, 2025, Convert Parcel Coverage Development Standards to Floor Area Ratio for the City’s Residential Zoning Districts, and Align Density Standards for the City’s Multiple-Unit Residential Zoning Districts with the Intensities Envisioned in the Land Use and Circulation Element; for Consistency With Recent Updates to State law; and Making Other Minor Changes, Corrections and Clarifications.
3. Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 8.08 to Extend Expiration for Building Permit Applications Complete as of January 6, 2025
4. Adopt a Resolution Amending the Santa Monica General Plan Land Use Map for the Parcel Located at 1331 Wilshire Boulevard for Consistent Designation.
5. Introduce for First Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Official Districting Map for the Parcel Located at 1331 Wilshire Boulevard for Consistent Designation.
6. Adopt a Resolution amending the Santa Monica General Plan Land Use Map for the Parcel Located at 2644 30th Street for Consistent Designation.
7. Introduce for First Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Official Districting Map for the Parcel Located at 2644 30th Street for Consistent Designation.
Summary
On August 31, 2024, the California Legislature ended its 2024 Legislative session and passed a series of new laws, which included more than 30 bills directed at addressing the Statewide housing crisis and homelessness. An overview of the new laws was presented to Planning Commission on January 15, 2025, and an Information Item was provided to City Council on February 14, 2025. While not all of the new laws require amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance, summarized below are the proposed revisions required for consistency with applicable State laws. 3 of 33
In addition to revisions for State Law consistency, text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are proposed consistent with City Council direction, along with various other changes, corrections, and clarifications, as well as amendments to Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 8.08, and two amendments to the Santa Monica General Plan Land Use Map and Official Districting Map for parcels located at 2644 30th Street and 1331 Wilshire Boulevard for consistent designations. These additional revisions are also summarized in this report.
Discussion
Planning Commission Action and Subsequent Revisions
On March 19, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Land Use Plan Map and Official Districting Map. After considering all oral and written evidence received, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments consistent with Council direction and staff’s recommendations regarding five policy questions, with the exception of issues related to Duplexes and Lot-Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential, adjustments to the Special Program Commitments for Housing Projects in Bergamot Districts on Large Sites, and increasing the threshold for eligibility for administrative review and approval of housing projects outside the Bergamot Districts, as explained more fully below.
Revisions for Consistency with State Law
The following table provides a summary of the proposed revisions for consistency with State law.
Topic State Law -
Summary
Revised
Code Section Text/Proposed Revision
4 of 33
Topic State Law -
Summary
Revised
Code Section Text/Proposed Revision
Density Bonus AB 2694 and AB
3116 – Modifies
Density Bonus law
for Shared Housing
Unit and Student
Housing
Development
Section
9.22.030 –
9.22.050
Add in new definitions for
“Shared Housing Unit” and
“Student Housing
Development”; Update
density bonuses for student
housing development
Housing
Project
Definition
AB 1893 - Revises
definition of
“Housing
Development
Project” for
purposes of the
Housing
Accountability Act
(HAA)
Section
9.52.020.1125
Revise Housing Project
definition to align with HAA:
• At least 2/3 new or
converted sf is residential
• At least 50% of new or
converted sf is residential
and is at least 500 net
new residential uses and
no portion is designated
for hotel, motel, or
transient lodging
• At least 50% or net new
or converted sf is
residential and project is
at least 500 net new
units, involves demolition
or conversion of at least
100,000 sf of
nonresidential use,
demolishes at least 50%
of existing non-residential
uses on site, and no
portion is hotel, motel, or
transient
• Transitional or supportive
housing
• Farmworker housing
ADUs and
JADUs
(See additional
revisions
below)
SB 1211 – modifies
ADU law
Section
9.31.025
Increase number of permitted
detached ADUs in
conjunction with multi-unit
dwellings:
• Proposed Developments:
2 ADUs
• Existing Developments:
Up to 8 ADUs but cannot
exceed existing unit
count.
5 of 33
Topic State Law -
Summary
Revised
Code Section Text/Proposed Revision
Major Transit
Stop
AB 2553 – Changes
definition of Major
Transit Stop
Online Maps No Change –The City’s online
map of Major Transit Stops
has been updated to reflect
service intervals of 20
minutes.
Noticing AB 2904 –
Increases noticing
requirements from
10 days to 20 days
when amending the
Zoning Ordinance to
affect permitted
uses of real property
Section
9.46.040,
9.46.050,
9.37.050
Change noticing period
requirement to at least 20
days before the required
public hearing on a proposed
zoning ordinance or
amendment to the zoning
ordinance, if the proposed
ordinance or amendment
affects the permitted uses of
real property.
Small
Subdivisions of
10 units or less
SB 1123 – Expands
SB 684’s ministerial
approvals of small
subdivisions to
single family parcels
no larger than 1.5
acres
N/A SB 1123 does not take effect
until July 1, 2025. The
California Department of
Housing and Community
Development has indicated
that guidance on
implementation of SB 1123
and SB 684 is underway. In
anticipation of the release of
such guidance, City staff will
continue to monitor and
review this new State law. No
changes are proposed at this
time pending HCD guidance.
Lot Splits and
Duplexes on
Parcels Zoned
for Single-Unit
Residential
(See additional
revisions
below)
SB 450 – Makes
clarifying revisions
to the State law
requiring ministerial
approval of lot splits
and duplexes in
properties zoned
single-unit
residential
Section
9.31.125
• Removes the option to
prohibit projects that would
result in the demolition of
more than 25% of existing
exterior walls
• Makes clear that a local
agency cannot impose
objective standards to lot
split/duplex projects
unless: 1) the standards
apply uniformly within the
zone; or 2) the standards
are more permissive than
state law
6 of 33
Topic State Law -
Summary
Revised
Code Section Text/Proposed Revision
• Removes authorization for
a local agency to deny a
proposed housing
development if the building
official makes a written
finding that the proposed
housing development
project would have a
specific, adverse impact
upon the physical
environment (the
authorization to deny
based on a written finding
that the proposed project
would have a specific,
adverse impact on public
health or safety remains in
place).
• Agency must approve or
deny applications within
60 days of complete
application otherwise will
be deemed approved.
Community
Clinics
AB 2085 - Creates
ministerial approval
process for
community clinics
providing
reproductive
services
Tables
9.10.040;
9.11.020;
9.12.020;
9.13.020;
9.14.020;
9.15.020;
Section
9.51.030(8)(c)
Add “Community Clinics” as a
permitted land use in the nonresidential districts and as a new Nonresidential Use
Classification
➢ Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.
Background
In addition to SB 1211, in March 2024, the legislature reorganized State ADU and JADU law, now located at Government Code Sections 66310 et seq., and in the early 2025, the California Department of Housing and Community 7 of 33
Development (HCD) issued updated guidance on implementation of State ADU law through their 2025 ADU Handbook.
Summary of Changes
In response to the reorganization of the Government Code related to ADUs and JADUs, and new guidance provided by HCD, staff is proposing an overhaul of the City’s ADU/JADU ordinance (SMMC Section 9.31.025). Largely, the revisions contained within the fully revised code section are to comply with State law and align with the City’s current ADU implementation. However, when reviewing HCD’s 2025 ADU Handbook, staff encountered some conflicting areas between the City’s current ADU ordinance and HCD’s updated interpretations that require shifts in implementation. Provided in the table below is an overview comparing existing and proposed ADU standards and regulations, as well as policy questions for the Council.
Please note that pursuant to State law, when a jurisdiction adopts a new ADU ordinance it must submit the ordinance to HCD for review and approval.
Therefore, after the adoption of the proposed revisions, staff will submit to HCD for review, and staff may return at a later time based on comments received from HCD.
Topic Existing
Implementation
Proposed
Implementation
State Mandated ADUs and JADUs and Standards
State Mandated
ADUs and JADUs
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 number and types of
ADUs/JADUs are required to
be permitted on a single
parcel:
Single-Unit Dwellings:
• 1 ADU and 1 JADU
established from
converting existing or
proposed space of a
single-unit dwelling or
8 of 33
Topic Existing
Implementation
Proposed
Implementation
accessory structure; and
• 1 detached, new
construction, ADU with 4’
side and rear setbacks
Total ADUs/JADUs: 3
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 existing unit
count.
Total ADUs: Depends on
development, but both
options are inclusive of the
other.
Locally Permitted “Bonus” ADUs and JADUs and Standards
Number of ADUs
and JADUs
Permitted
The number and types of
ADUs/JADUs are
permitted to be on a
single parcel:
Single-Unit Dwellings:
• 1 attached ADU
through conversion or
new construction
• 1 JADU
• 1 detached through
conversion or new
construction
• 1 detached ADU in R1
The number and types of
ADUs/JADUs are permitted to
be on a single parcel:
Single-Unit Dwellings:
• 1 ADU and 1 JADU
established from
converting existing or
proposed space of a
single-unit dwelling or
accessory structure
• 1 detached, new
construction, ADU
• 1 attached or detached
ADU in R1 pursuant to
9 of 33
Topic Existing
Implementation
Proposed
Implementation
pursuant to Housing
Element Program
Total ADUs/JADUs: 4
Multiple-Unit Dwellings:
• Conversion of existing
space to 1 ADU or up
to 25% the existing
unit count
• Detached new
construction: 2 ADUs
Total ADUs: Depends on
development, but both
options are inclusive of
each other.
Housing Element
Program. See policy
question
Total ADUs/JADUs: 4
Multiple-Unit Dwellings:
• Conversion: No change.
• Detached new
construction:
• Proposed
Developments: 2
• Existing
Developments: Up to
8 ADUs but cannot
exceed existing unit
count.
Total ADUs: Depends on
development, but both
options are inclusive of each
other.
Setback • Conversion: existing
setback
• New Construction: 4’
side/rear
No change.
Height • Attached: Same as
SUD
• Detached: 24’/2
stories
No change.
Floor Area All ADUs and JADUs
Exempt
No Change. See policy
question
Size • Minimum: 220 SF
• Maximum:
• Studio/1bdr: 850
SF
• 2+ bdr on parcel <
10,000 SF: 1,000
SF
• 2+ bdr on parcel >
10,000 SF: 1,200
SF
• JADU: 500 SF
• When attached to
• Minimum: 150 SF
(efficiency unit)
• Maximum:
• Studio/1bdr: No
change.
• 2+ bdr: 1,200 SF
• JADU: No change.
• When attached to
SUD: No change.
• Conversion of existing
accessory structure:
No change.
10 of 33
Topic Existing
Implementation
Proposed
Implementation
SUD: 50% of
primary unit
• Conversion of
existing accessory
structure: No limit
Expansion of
Conversion
• Non-conforming
setback: 150 SF for
ingress/egress
• Conforming addition:
Up to size limits
• Non-conforming setback:
No change.
• Conforming addition: No
change. See policy
question
Design
Standards
• Separation between
ADUs and primary
units: 6’
• Applicable stepbacks
when attached.
• Upper-story outdoor
space:
• R1: 35 SF
• All Other: 60 SF
• Limits of
elevations
• No second story
roof decks
• Separation between ADUs
and primary units: 4’
• No change.
• Upper-story outdoor
space: Underlying zoning
district standards. See
policy question
Parking • Required: None
• Conversion
Replacement
Requirement: None
No Change.
Development
Impact Fees
None. No Change.
Policy Question: ADU Floor Area Exemption.
Background:
To incentive ADUs, Santa Monica has exempted ADUs and JADUs from floor area since 2020. October 22, 2024, Council gave direction to increase ADU size up to 1,200 SF for ADUs with two or more bedrooms.
Question:
Given the increase in the number of ADUs on a parcel pursuant to State law and HCD, and the increased size pursuant to Council direction, should the City continue to exempt all ADUs from floor area?
11 of 33
Options:
➢ Yes, continue to exempt all ADUs/JADUs from floor area. (PC & staff recommendation for consistency with current practice and to continue to incentive ADUs in order to achieve the City’s Housing Element goal of 47 new units per year within the R1 zoning district)
➢ No, only exempt what is required by State law.
➢ Alternative: Exempt some amount of ADUs (e.g.: up to a certain unit amount or square footage)
Policy Question: Expansion of ADU Conversions.
Background:
State law only requires a jurisdiction to allow an ADU or JADU that is converted from existing floor area to expand the footprint up to 150 SF for ingress and egress purposes only. Currently, Santa Monica allows ADUs and JADUs to expand the footprint beyond 150 SF if the addition complies with all standards (e.g.: setbacks, size, height).
Question:
To incentivize ADUs under Santa Monica’s local implementation, should the City continue to allow converted ADUs to expand beyond 150 SF if the new square footage complies with applicable standards?
Options:
➢ Yes, continue to allow ADUs/JADUs to expand beyond 150 SF if they comply with all standards. (PC & staff recommendation for consistency with current practice and to continue to incentivize ADUs) ➢ No, don’t allow ADUs/JADUs to expand beyond 150 SF.
Policy Question: New Construction Attached ADUs and JADUs.
Background:
State law does not provide allowances for ADUs or JADUs established through an addition to existing SUDs that do not include any amount of converted floor area. Currently, the City allows this type of ADU/JADU to be established.
Question:
Should the City continue to allow this, and if so, should this new attached ADU be permitted only under Housing Element Program 4.C that allows an extra ADU in the R1 zone if the ADU is deed restricted as a rental unit (current implementation of program is only for an extra detached unit, but Housing Element program does not require the ADU to be detached)? This would continue to allow for an ADU option that is currently available but keep the number of ADUs that can be established to four (JADU, new detached ADU, 12 of 33
converted ADU, and Housing Element program ADU).
Options:
➢ Yes, continue to allow the ADU/JADU option and include the ADU under the requirements for the extra ADU in the R1 zoning district (PC & staff recommendation for implementation ease and current consistency) ➢ No, don’t allow an ADU or JADU to be established through new construction in conjunction with an existing single-unit dwelling.
Policy Question: Upper-Story Outdoor Spaces.
Background:
Currently, upper-story outdoor spaces for detached ADUs are limited to 35 SF in the R1 zoning district and 60 SF everywhere else, with additional limitations on what elevations they can be located on (not permitted on elevations facing adjacent parcels) and restrictions on second story roof decks (not permitted).
These provisions were implemented when ADUs were typically the only type of development that could be located closer to parcel lines than a primary unit.
Question:
Given adoption of more recent laws that now allow other types of developments (duplexes in the R1 zoning district and housing projects up to 10 units in the multi-unit residential zoning districts [SB 684]) to be the same distance as ADUs can be from side and rear parcel lines (4’), should the current upper-story outdoor space limits be eliminated in favor for the standards applicable to the underlying zoning districts? Options:
➢ Yes, apply underlying zoning district standards (PC & staff recommendation for ease of implementation and consistency with other State laws)
➢ No, keep existing limitations.
Revisions Based on City Council Direction
Below is a summary of the proposed recommended revisions pursuant to City Council Direction.
➢ Elimination of 1-Acre Administrative Approval Threshold for Housing Projects.
Background
On December 17, 2024, “in order to reduce the time and cost associated with developing new housing,” the City Council gave direction to staff to “return with 13 of 33
an ordinance by April 30, 2025 that allows all “housing projects” (as defined by California’s Housing Accountability Act) proposed in all non-residential zones except the Bergamot Area Plan to be processed through an Administrative Approval process regardless of the size of the parcel upon which the housing project is located.”
Summary of Changes
Amendments have been made to SMMC Chapter 9.39 (Administrative Approval) to remove the existing 1-acre (43,560 SF) size threshold to qualify for Administrative Approvals and delete the City’s local definition of “streamlined housing project” as it is no longer applicable without the project site size threshold.
It should be noted that the Planning Commission did not recommend removing the 1-acre parcel size threshold for when housing projects are subject to discretionary review. Instead, the Planning Commission would like Council to consider creating a program similar to the Bergamot special incentive program that would ensure that the City receives some additional benefits in exchange for administrative processing of larger housing projects.
➢ Increase in ADU Size
Background
Continued from October 8, 2024, on October 22, 2024 City Council gave direction to staff to “begin the process to amend the Zoning Ordinance to increase the maximum square footage of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) from 1,000 sq. ft. to 1,200 sq. ft, which is allowable pursuant to state law.” Amongst other things, Council provided the desire to create “family sized” units.
Summary of Changes
14 of 33
Amendments to SMMC Section 9.31.025 have been made to increase the maximum square footage of ADUs containing two or more bedrooms to 1,200 SF regardless of parcel size.
➢ Revisions to the City’s Ordinance Regarding Lot Splits and Duplexes on Parcel Zoned for Single-Unit Dwellings
Background
On January 28, 2025, “in order to facilitate diverse housing choices in the City’s highest opportunity areas,” in conjunction with necessary updates arising out of SB 450, the City Council gave direction to staff to “return with an ordinance to amend the City’s regulations governing ministerial approval for certain lot splits and duplexes on parcels zoned for single-unit residential by: (1) 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, (2) allowing one roof deck per unit, and (3) 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.”
Summary of Changes
In addition to the revisions required for consistency with SB 450, amendments to SMMC Section 9.21.125 (removal of owner-occupancy; clarification regarding eligibility of vacant and demolished parcels; increased guaranteed unit size) and Section 9.07.030 (roof deck allowance) have been made to implement Council’s direction from January 28, 2025.
However, the Planning Commission recommended retaining the applicant owneroccupancy requirement for lot splits from State law, citing concerns related to whether removal of the owner-occupancy requirement would result in meeting Council’s stated goal of increasing diverse housing supply in the City’s highest opportunity areas, questions raised by the community, and pending legislation at 15 of 33
the time. The Planning Commission further discussed whether to explore allowing the owner occupancy requirement to be met by a “beneficial owner” of a trust or a limited liability entity.
Subsequent to Planning Commission’s review and recommendation, staff proposes additional revisions to the implementation of roof decks within the R1 zoning district. After further evaluation staff believes that the currently required 7’ setback measured from the edges of the building for roof decks above the second story may present a constraint to Council’s direction that each unit within the R1 zoning district should be permitted a roof deck. The current implementation in effect penalizes an applicant for proposing a smaller second story footprint because after a 7’ setback is provided from each building edge there may be little to no space to provide a roof deck. Therefore, staff proposes the following additional revisions regarding where the 7’ setback shall be measured from:
Upper-Story Outdoor Space
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Maximum size of roof
deck above second story
3% of parcel area or 300
sq. ft., whichever is less
Maximum of 1 per
dwelling unit parcel,
which shall be set back
a minimum of with a 7 ft.
measured from minimum
setbacks from edges of
building.
With implementation of amendments regarding guaranteed unit size and amount pursuant to Council direction, Staff has the following policy question regarding prioritization of standards in the R1 zoning district.
Policy Question: Prioritizing Reduction in Standards
Background:
When establishing a duplex in the R1 zoning district, Council directed the guarantee of two 1,200 SF units per parcel combined with the increased potential number of ADUs pursuant to State law.
16 of 33
Question:
If standards are required to be modified to provide guaranteed unit sizes and number of units, which standards should be modified first? Standards for consideration:
➢ Increased FAR (current standard: 0.45 - 0.55, depending on development) ➢ Increased building height (current standard: 28’/2 stories) ➢ Reduced side setback (current standard: 4’)
➢ Reduced rear setback (current standard: 4’)
➢ Reduced front setback (differs across the city)
➢ Reduced stepbacks (current standard: 1% or parcel area on the front elevation and both side elevations)
➢ Reduced building separation between ADUs and primary units (proposed:
4’)
➢ Reduced parking (current standard: 1 space is not within ½ mile either a high-quality transit corridor or major transit stop)
PC Recommendation:
1. Increased FAR
2. Reduced stepbacks
3. Reduced parking
4. Reduced building separation between ADUs and primary units
5. Increased building height
6. Reduced front setback
7. Reduced rear setback
8. Reduced side setback
➢ Revisions to the Administrative Approval Criteria for Large Sites in Bergamot Zoning Districts
Background
On February 11, 2025, the City Council gave direction to staff to “adjust the Administrative Approval criteria for housing projects within the Bergamot Area Plan (BAP) and present them for Council consideration and adoption at the April 22 meeting.” To “ensure housing project are feasible,” these adjustments should include that “street and pathway requirements shall be limited to those envisioned in the BAP (p. 207) and interpreted liberally in favor of ensuring the production of new housing, their exact location shall be flexible so as to avoid bisecting parcels and limiting site feasibility, they shall be credited towards the 17 of 33
14% open space requirement at a ratio of 1.5:1, and subject to staff discretion for sites under 2 acres.”
Summary of Changes
Amendments to SMMC Section 9.12.030(O) Special Project Commitments for Housing Projects in Bergamot Districts on Large Sites have been made to implement Council’s above direction with modifications based on discussions with the Planning Commission. Notwithstanding the adopted commitments of the program which apply to projects on sites greater than one acre, projects on parcels 98,010 sf or less in size would be eligible for flexibility in required pedestrian pathways or streets, and open space program commitments in order to support project feasibility as follows:
• Required ground-level pedestrian pathways or new streets dedicated for public use identified in the BAP (Figure 7.01) may be designed through alternative means including whether a pedestrian pathway or new street is provided and its location relative to the site, subject to Director review and approval, provided the street or pathway:
1. Does not bisect the parcel in a manner that would limit project feasibility;
2. Improves network connections and circulation;
3. Is usable as publicly accessible open space;
4. Is pedestrian-scaled in design; and
5. Aligns with BAP street network implemented with any future public investment.
• Minimum Ground Level Open Space: Projects would not be required to provide the higher minimum ground level open space of 14% as required under this special program. Instead, the minimum ground-level open 18 of 33
space would remain consistent with the minimum 12% required for all housing projects in the BAP.
The proposed changes would allow design flexibility for the pedestrian pathway or new street on sites 2.25 acres or less in size to ensure housing projects are realized.
Although 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.
The Planning Commission commented in support of Council’s direction that projects on parcels up to two acres in size are provided with flexibility on the Program’s pedestrian pathways/streets and open space requirements, however with two modifications:
1) In efforts to further encourage housing development on these smaller sized parcels qualifying for the special program, the Commission commented to expand Council’s two-acre threshold to 2.25 acres providing additional buffer and greater parcel flexibility. This would result in a slightly expanded range of parcels that this added flexibility would apply to parcels 1 to 2.25 acres in size.
2) For open space, these projects between 1 and 2.25 acres in size would not be required to provide additional open space beyond the baseline 12% 19 of 33
open space required for all housing projects (14% required in the current program), consistent with staff’s recommendation as described above.
Staff is supportive of the Planning Commission’s modifications with respect to increasing the parcel size to 2.25 acres where such projects would be subject to the baseline 12% open space, and those changes are reflected in the proposed text amendments for Council’s consideration.
➢ Permit Expiration Extensions
Background
On February 11, 2025, the City Council gave direction to staff to “prepare an ordinance granting all development, land use, or subdivision applications as allowed by applicable State law (including any such applications granted on appeal) that were approved prior to January 6, 2025 an extension of two years beyond their current expiration dates and all complete building permit applications submitted or issued prior to January 6, 2025 an extension of one year beyond their current expiration dates (including dates to start and complete work), provided that applicant attests project will comply with current code.” Additionally, “for approved Development Agreement projects that are not yet under construction, provide an administrative pathway for the applicants to opt in to this two-year extension to the building permit issuance date as a subsequent code change that developer can elect to consent to in writing.” Summary of Changes
Amendments to SMMC Section 9.37.090, Section 9.54.090, and Chapter 8.08 have been made to implement Council’s above direction to give an additional: (1) two years on top of existing expirations for development, land use, or subdivision applications issued prior to January 6, 2025; and (2) one year for all complete building permit applications submitted or issued prior to January 6, 2025, provided that the applicant attests that the project will comply with current code requirements. While AB 2729 provides an 18-month extension for housing 20 of 33
entitlements issued on or before January 1, 2024 and will expire prior to December 31, 2025, this local extension will expand the applicability of extensions and will provide more time than State law. Therefore, implementation of AB 2729 is not required. Additionally, please note, State law is not additive to the local extension.
Regarding extensions for Development Agreement projects, staff proposes amendments be made upon request to individual Development Agreements through a minor modification of the agreement.
Additional Revisions
Below is a summary of addition revisions recommended by Staff:
➢ Mapping Issues
Background
Staff have been made aware of the following two LUCE designation and Zoning Ordinance Classification mapping errors that have resulted in nonconforming conditions and impediments to planned and future development of the subject parcels including affecting the ability to lease and obtain financing.
Address APN LUCE
Designation
Zoning
Classification
Existing
Development/Use
2644 30th St
(portion
containing
commercial
building
only)
4270-016-
084
Single
Family
Housing
R1 (SingleUnit
Residential)
Commercial office
building
1331
Wilshire Blvd
4281-012-
025
Mixed Use
Boulevard/
Low Density
Housing
MUB (Mixed
Use Blvd/R2
(Low Density
Residential)
Retail (Rite-Aid)
21 of 33
Summary of Changes
Staff proposes the following recommendations for revising the LUCE designations and Zoning Ordinance classification for the subject parcels:
Address APN Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Existing
LUCE
Proposed
LUCE
2644 30th
St
(portion
containing
commercial
building
only)
4270-
016-
084
R1 (SingleUnit
Residential)
NC
(Neighborhood
Commercial)
Single
Family
Housing
Neighborhood
Commercial
1331
Wilshire
Blvd
4281-
012-
025
MUB
(Mixed Use
Boulevard)
/R2 (Low
Density
Residential)
MUB (MixedUse
Boulevard)
Mixed Use
Boulevard/
Low
Density
Housing
Mixed Use
Boulevard
2644 30th St
The subject portion of the parcel is currently designated as Single Family Housing and zoned R1 (Single-Unit Residential), but since 1956 has been developed as a commercial office building. Historically, this portion of the parcel was designated as C2 (what is now typically NC - Neighborhood Commercial), but when the General Plan Land Use Map was amended as part of the 2010 LUCE update and the Official Districting Map was amended as part of the 2015 Zoning Ordinance update, this portion’s designations were changed to Single Family Housing in the Land Use Map and R1 (Single-Unit Residential) in the Official Districting Map. This appears to have been inadvertent given the longstanding use of the property and prior designation as C2. During the Zoning Ordinance update, there was an effort to correct these unintentional mapping errors (115 were identified, 19 of which were changed from commercial/industrial to residential); however, it appears the subject parcel was inadvertently 22 of 33
overlooked at that time. This has created a nonconforming condition and impediments to future development and financing for the current structure.
Therefore, given the development history of the parcel and the land use limitations of the R1 zoning districts, staff recommends the above LUCE designation and Zoning Ordinance classification shown in the table and as shown in the diagrams below.
1331 Wilshire Blvd
The subject parcel, which is currently improved with a building that is being occupied with a longstanding retail use (Rite-Aid), has “split zoning” with the front two-thirds along Wilshire Blvd being designated MUB (Mixed-Use Boulevard), and the rear one-third being designated as R2 (Low Density Residential). The 23 of 33
LUCE designations are similarly split. This split zoning runs through the existing structure and therefore makes the rear R2 portion nonconforming. This has presented issues in potential reuse of the property as commercial uses are generally prohibited in the R2 zoning district. Additionally, the subject split zoning presents a constraint on potential redevelopment of the parcel as two incongruous sets of land use regulations and development standards would be applied to the parcel. Therefore, staff recommends the above LUCE designation and Zoning Ordinance classification shown in the table and as shown in the diagrams below.
➢ Conversion of Parcel Coverage to Floor Area.
Background
24 of 33
Recent updates to State law have increasingly started to dictate minimum guaranteed development sizes for housing development projects such as Accessory Dwelling Units, duplexes and lot splits in the R1 zone, and multi-unit dwellings of 10 or fewer units (SB 478 and SB 684). These guaranteed sizes come in the form of floor area or Floor Area Ratio (FAR). In zoning districts that use parcel coverage instead of FAR (R1, R2, R3, R4, OP1, OPD, OP2, OP3, and OP4), staff is finding difficulty in adequately implementing these size requirements as parcel coverage is based on a total footprint measurement and floor area/FAR is more connected to the actual living area within structures and excludes certain non-habitable areas.
Summary of Changes
To better implement State law and align more accurately with the purpose of parcel coverage and floor area/FAR, a summary of the below amendments is provided below. Amendments were also made to increase efficiency and transparency in reviewing and approving housing development projects in the City’s residential zoning districts. It should be noted that staff have ensured that current development potential has been retained, and this conversion does not conflict with any downzoning limitations pursuant to the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, SB 330/8.
The following amendments have been made:
• SMMC Section 9.04.080: Clarifying revisions to floor area • SMM Section 9.04.090: Title change of section from Determining Floor Area Ratio to Determining Floor Area Ratio in Non-Residential Zoning District to differentiate between non-residential and residential zones. • SMMC Section 9.04.100:
o Retitled from Determining Residential Parcel Coverage to Determining Floor Area Ratio in Residential Zoning Districts o Simplified what is included and excluded from FAR in residential zones by eliminating exemptions that were no longer needed and 25 of 33
revised inclusions to ensure that the conversion to FAR still captured the fundamental aspects that parcel coverage was trying to achieve.
• SMMC Sections 9.07.030, 9.08.030, 9.09.030: Convert parcel coverage percentages to FAR. See the table below for an overview of the conversions.
• Miscellaneous revisions through code to replace references to parcel coverage with floor area or FAR.
Below is a summary of the proposed conversions. Please note, except in the R1 zoning district, the proposed FAR reflects that prior parcel coverage percentages were applied to each story.
Zoning
District Parcel Coverage
Existing
Number
of
Stories
FAR
for Housing Projects
R1
• 2-story structure: 45%
• 1-story structure: 50%
• Existing w/ Addition: 55%
2 • 2-story structure: 0.45
• 1-story structure: 0.50
• Existing w/ Addition: 0.55
R2 • Base Standard: 50%
• 100% Affordable: N/A 2 1.0
R3 • Base Standard: 50%
• 100% Affordable: N/A 3 1.5
R4 • Base Standard: 50%
• 100% Affordable: N/A 4 2.0
OP1 • Base Standard: 50%
• 100% Affordable: 60% 2
• Base Standard: 1.0
• 100% Affordable: 1.2
OPD • Base Standard: 50%
• 100% Affordable: 60% 2
• Base Standard: 1.0
• 100% Affordable: 1.2
OP2 • Base Standard: 50%
• 100% Affordable: 60% 2
• Base Standard: 1.0
• 100% Affordable: 1.2
OP3 • Base Standard: 50%
• 100% Affordable: 60% 2
• Base Standard: 1.0
• 100% Affordable: 1.2
OP4 • Base Standard: 50%
• 100% Affordable: 60% 3
• Base Standard: 1.5
• 100% Affordable: 1.8
26 of 33
➢ LUCE and Zoning Ordinance Consistency in the City’s Residential Districts to Increase Housing Potential.
Background
When there is an inconsistency between the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance following an update to the General Plan, State law requires jurisdictions to allow for the greater density (as between the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan). The multi-unit residential districts include density caps not found in the LUCE and also include Tiers for density and height. In order to provide consistency between the maximum allowable density in the zoning ordinance and development intensities (density, building height, etc.) identified in the LUCE, staff proposes the revisions described below.
Summary of Changes
Amendments to SMMC Section 9.08.030 (Multi-Unit Residential Districts Development Standards) to remove density caps not found in the LUCE and establish Tier 2 standards as base standards for housing projects. It should be noted that while unit replacement requirements pursuant to SB 330/8 will ensure there is no loss of protected units, the proposed amendments took into consideration housing preservation goals established in the Housing Element.
Zoning/LUCE
Designation Zoning Ordinance Density LUCE Tier 2 Density R2/Low Density
Housing
1 unit per 2,000 SF; or
Max 4 units, whichever is less 1 unit per 1,500 SF
R3/Medium Density
Housing
1 unit per 1,500 SF; or
Max 5 units, whichever is less 1 unit per 1,250 SF
R4/High Density
Housing
1 unit per 1,250 SF; or
Max 6 units, whichever is less 1 unit per 900 SF
To assess the potential impact of increasing maximum allowable density, staff compared the existing number of units of all parcels in the multi-unit residential zones to a theoretical maximum number of units in a Tier 2 development based on parcel size, units allowed per square foot, and existing protected rent control 27 of 33
units. To ensure that an increase in density would not lead to major displacement in residential zones, Staff identified instances where a net increase in units could occur if Tier 2 maximum densities were applied.
Low-Density Residential Zone (R2)
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.
Although increasing the maximum allowable density and removing the unit caps seems to open an additional 197 parcels to redevelopment in R2 zone, the development potential is tempered by the number of existing protected units that would be required to be replaced under State law:
• 86 of the 197 parcels (44%) have rent control units
• Of the 111 parcels not subject to rent control:
o 65 parcels (59%) are developed with single-unit dwellings o 46 parcels (41%) are developed with multi-unit dwellings It is assumed that parcels with rent-controlled units and existing multi-unit dwellings (even if not subject to rent control) would be less likely to redevelop because of replacement unit requirements in accordance with State law. Thus, the analysis of the impact of the proposed amendments shows that 65 parcels, (representing 33% of the 197 parcels where at least one net new unit could be added) with existing single-unit dwellings will be most likely to redevelop.
Medium-Density Residential Zone (R3)
28 of 33
Similarly, under current Tier 1 density in the Medium-Density Residential zone (R3), 186 (25%) out of 753 parcels have the potential to add at least one net new unit after accounting for replacement requirements. Under the proposed amendment that applies Tier 2 density and removes the unit caps, the number of parcels with the potential to add at least one net new unit after accounting for replacement requirements increases to 294 (39%) out of 753 R3 parcels.
Although increasing the maximum allowable density and removing the unit caps seems to open an additional 108 parcels to redevelopment in the R3 zone, the development potential is tempered by the number of existing protected units that would be required to be replaced under State law:
• 97 of the 108 parcels (90%) have rent control units
• Of the 11 parcels not subject to rent control:
o 11 parcels (100%) are developed with multi-unit dwellings.
It is assumed that parcels with rent-controlled units and existing multi-unit dwellings (even if not subject to rent control) would be less likely to redevelop because of replacement unit requirements in accordance with State law. Thus, the analysis of the impact of the proposed amendments shows that no additional parcels are likely to redevelop.
High-Density Residential Zone (R4)
Finally, the same analysis was run for the High-Density Residential zone (R4).
The analysis shows that the proposal to apply Tier 2 density and remove the unit caps does not increase the number of parcels with the potential to add at least one net new unit after accounting for replacement requirements.
Please note, amendments were not made to the Ocean Park Neighborhood Zoning Districts. Due to Ocean Park’s unique development pattern and overall 29 of 33
parcel sizes/dimensions compared to the rest of the city staff would like to conduct additional research and evaluation before proposing revisions.
Other Revisions as Necessary for Cleanup and Clarity
Subsequent to recent amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, staff have identified nonsubstantiative clean-ups necessary to provide clarity and transparency. The table below provides a summary list, but is not limited to, of proposed clarifications:
Topic Location of Revisions Description of Revisions
SB 684/Gov. Code
66499.41 - Small
Subdivisions of 10 units or
less
Section 9.08.030 and
Section 9.09.030
Clarifies applicability and
requirements between
ownership and rental
projects.
Architectural Review Board Section 9.55.120 Clarifies that in order to count towards the threemeeting limit for ARB
review, an item must be
discussed.
Adaptive Reuse Section 9.31.035 Clarifies that Adaptive Reuse project are not
permitted in the R1 and
OP1 zoning districts;
clarifies where rear and
side additions are
permitted relative to the
existing building.
Density Bonus Section 9.22.050 Clarifies that for State Density Bonus Law
projects, any fractional unit
rounds up to the next
whole number for base
density calculations.
Air Quality Assessment
Zone & Outdoor Space
Requirements
Section 9.21.090(F)(2) Provides flexibility for
private outdoor space to
be provided as common
open space when projects
are within the Air Quality
Assessment Zone (AQAZ).
Air Quality Assessment
Zone
Section 9.31.195 Provides clarification as to
what documentation is
needed to determine
AQAZ design features.
Affordable Housing Section 9.64.050 Acknowledges that the 30 of 33
Topic Location of Revisions Description of Revisions
Production Program provision of on-site
affordable housing units as
required under State law
(e.g.: replacement unit
requirements in
SB330/SB8 and recycled
5 th Cycle SSI sites
providing 20% affordable)
can override local
requirements.
Delegation of Authority Section 9.36.010,
9.35.020, and 9.37.160
Clarifies the authority of
the Director, Zoning
Administrative, and
designee in the approval of
ministerial projects,
declarative of existing law
and practice.
Single-Room Occupancy Section 9.51.020(B)(11)(a) Revises code section references.
Accessory Buildings and
Structures – Separation
from Primary Units
Section 9.21.020 Revises 6’ separation
standard to 4’ to align with
ADU ordinance.
Update on Administrative Approval Process
As part of the first implementation phase of Housing Element programs, on March 21, 2023, Council adopted amendments to Chapter 9.39 (Administrative Approvals) to further streamline housing projects pursuant to Program 1.A (By-Right Approval for Housing Projects). Part of the adoption was a policy direction to create administrative guidelines with processing timeline goals that would expand upon and continue timelines established by Senate Bill 330/8 to help create certainty for applicants in the permitting process. Therefore, staff created a handout with the following proposed review timeframes:
• Application submittal completeness determination – 30 days (pursuant to SB 330/8)
• Code compliance review to deliver written comments after application determined complete:
o Projects with 150 units or less – 30 days (pursuant to SB 330/8) 31 of 33
o Projects larger than 150 units – 60 days (pursuant to SB 330/8) • Subsequent turnaround times to deliver written comments after receipt of revised plans from applicant:
o Projects with 150 units or less – 30 days
o Projects larger than 150 units – 60 days
• Timeline to receive final determination once project has been determined to be code compliant:
o Projects with 150 units or less – 30 days
o Projects larger than 150 units – 60 days
Since implementation of these timelines, as of April 1, 2025, 30 housing projects seeking Administrative Approval have been submitted, 12 of which have been approved. Below is a summary of the average processing timelines of the 12 approved projects.
Administrative Approval Timelines – Housing Projects
Number of Approved Projects 12
Average Completeness Review 27 days
Average Number of Code Compliance Review Rounds 2.5
Average Turnaround with Staff – Round 1 26 days
Average Turnaround with Staff – Round 2 46 days
Average Turnaround with Staff – Round 3 39 days
Average Applicant Code Compliance Response Time 41 days Average Time from Deemed Complete until First ARB Review 179 days Average Time from Deemed Code Compliant to Approval 50 days Total Average Time from Deemed Complete to Approval 289 days Environmental Review
The proposed approval of these ordinances to implement amendments for consistency with State law is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (common sense exemption) and Public Resources Code Sections 21080.17. Based on the evidence in the record, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed 32 of 33
changes (such as clean ups and clarifications, converting parcel coverage to floor area ratio and aligning density limitations with what is allowed in the LUCE in the multi-unit residential zones, streamlining thresholds, zoning map changes, and permit extensions) to the ordinances may have a significant effect on the environment. These changes are administrative in nature and would not increase the potential for additional development beyond what was already analyzed in the certified 6th Cycle Housing Element Environmental Impact Report. Additionally, pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the California Public Resources Code, the adoption of the ADU ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA. Under PRC Section 21080.17, CEQA does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county to implement the provisions of Section 65852.1 of, or Article 2 (commencing with Section 66314) or Article 3 (commencing with Section 66333) of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of, the Government Code (the state ADU and JADU law). The ordinance implements state law as it pertains to ADUs and JADUs. Therefore, the ordinance is statutorily exempt and no further environmental review under CEQA is required.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.
Prepared By: Ross Fehrman, Principal Planner
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. CDD-Ord-2025 Housing Updates 051325 with Exhibit A
B. ORD - 2025.05.13 - Article 8 Permit Extensions Final C. CDD-Reso-1331 Wilshire-LUCE Map Amendment 051325
33 of 33
D. CDD-Ord-1331 Wilshire-Zoning Map Amendment 051325
E. CDD-Reso-2644 30th St-LUCE Map Amendment 051325
F. CDD-Ord-2644 30th St-Zoning Map Amendment 051325
G. Written Comments
H. Presentation Item