SR-7-B (17)
(.
7-9
Santa Monlca, califorlli.1e. 9 199]
~CTM:P3:DKW:3A/apl9~013.pcword.plan
Council Mtg: July 9, 1991
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City staff
SGBJECT: Appeal of Two Planning Commission Conditions of
Approval (No. 13 and No. 34) for conditional Use Permit
91-013 to Permit the Construction of a Five Unit
Residential Condominium Project at 1142 Eighteenth
Street.
INTRODUCTION
Conditional Use permit 91-013 and Ves'ling Tentative Tract Map
50580 were approved on May 8, 1991 by the Planning Commission to
construct a two-story, five unit residential condominium project
at 1142 Eighteenth street. The applicant has appealed two CUP
conditions of approval (see Attachment A): 1) Condition No. 13
regarding compliance with the Transportation Management Plan, and
2) Inclusionary Unit Condition No. 34 regarding compliance with
the inclusionary housing requirements of the Housing Element of
the General Plan of the City of Santa Monica.
This report
recommends that the City council, in a two part action; deny the
appeal of Condition No. 34 regarding inclusionary housing as
approved by the Planning Commission, and uphold the appeal to
delete Condition No. 13 regarding the Transportation Management
Plan.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 91-013
and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50580 on May 8, 1991 to permit
- 1 -
7-8
JUL ~ 'J~i
the constructlon of a t,,,,ro story, five unit resldential
condomin~um proJect at 1142 Eighteenth Street (Attachment B). On
May 7, 1991, staff receIved a letter from the applicant's
representative contesting the conditions (Attachment C). Staff
evaluated the appllcantts request (Attachment D) and the Planning
CO~~:SSlon malntained the inclusionary housing condition as
proposed, and made minor modifications to the remaining
conditions in question (Attachment E).
Applicant's Appeal
The applicant has appealed Planning Commission Condition No. 13
and No. 34 (see Attachment C). Staff is recommending that
Condition No. 13 be deleted as residential projects are not
included in the proposed fee structure of the Draft
Transportation Management Plan.
The applicant's representative contends that revision of the
City's Housing Element is necessary to include a 30% inclusionary
housing requirement in place of the 15% requirement referenced in
the existing Housing Element to comply with the Element's
Inclusionary Housing Program. The representative also contends
that the adoption of Ordinance No. 1519 failed to satisfy the
procedures set forth in state housing laws (Government Code
Section 9121.6, et sec.) for proper amendment of the Housing
Element. The applicant's representative also requested that the
inclusionary housing condition be amended to comply with Program
12 as constituted in Resolution No. 7385 and with Ordinance No.
1448 which the representative contends ".. . properly implements
- 2 -
Program 12 in its present form.", (see Attachment C). Based on
this contentlon, the appllcant's representative is requesting
that Condition No. 34 be amended to require the developer to
provlde 15% of the five proposed units, or one affordable unit,
or to comply with the In-lieu fee schedule as set forth in
Ordinance No. 14~8.
The City Attorney has indicated that both Ordinance No. 1448 and
No. 1519 are lawful and consistent with state planning
regulations. Unless amended, both the Planning Commission and
Council are obligated to comply with both ordinances. In
addition, under provisions of State planning law, charter cities
such as Santa Monica are not required to maintain consistency
between the general plan and zoning, and even it such consistency
were required, the inclusionary requirements are not part of the
Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, the City is in the process of
amending the Housing Element. These amendments will address the
Program 12 inclusionary housing issue.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is a difference in the inclusionary housing fees based upon
the applicable ordinance. ordinances 1519 and 1448 have
different respective in-lieu fees of $15.65 and $5.07 per gross
square foot. Both are adjusted monthly based upon the Consumer
Price Index (CPI) fluctuations. Based upon 8,000 square feet,
the Ordinance 1519 fees are estimated at $125,200, and Ordinance
1448 fees are estimated at $40,560. The difference in fees
between both ordinances is $84,640.
- 3 -
, RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the CIty Council: deny the
appeal of Condition No. 34 regarding inclusionary housing as
approved by the Planning Commission, and uphold the appeal to
delete Conditlon No. 13 regarding the Transportation Management
Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Appeal of condition Nos. 13 and 34 of CUP 91-013 dated
5/21/91.
B. CUP 91-013/VTTM 50580, 5/8/91 Planning commission staff
Report
c. Appeal Letter from Lawrence & Harding, Inc. received on
5/7/91.
D. Supplemental staff Report to Planning Commission dated
5/8/91
E. Draft statement of Official Action
F. Applicant's Request for Continuance
G. staff Response to Continuance
Prepared by~ D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
Bruce Ambo, Assooiate Planner
Planning oivision
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
BA/PC/apl91013
- 4 -
Cltv of
Santa Monica
::"~rrmur;:y and cccnol'T"C DevelOQrnent De(lartmenr
Planning and Zoning DIvision
',2131458.8341
APPEAL FORM
FEE $100 00
,--,\L( \ _(- \ I
Date Fied
RecetYeCl by
R~No
S'" I z., 1"'1 I
'S ,......:
E \ II::! Ie <..t-
.' Eer'I',,' Ya..r.'1a.Yk c/o I..a....rer:ce & HardJ.na
".ame .,
Address 1250 SlXth St.....l"€!et, lf300 r Sa."1ta ~ruca, Ca 90401
Contact Perscn Ke.nnet.~ L. Kutc.~er Phone (213) 393-1007
Please descnbe tI'1e project and deCISIOn to be appealed Tlus DrOlect ~s a =~ve-un~t condCfT'J.ru.um ~rolect
wtuch was aP9ro\.'ed on May.g, 1991. Mr. YaI1Tlark hereby ap;:eals the ~s~t1on of CL"P
Condition No!';. 13 and 34. Mr. Yarrrark does not apr;ea1 the approval of Vesting
Tentat~ve Tract Map No. 50580, T...tu.ch becaroo effective on :!1ay 20, 1991.
Case Number CUP No. 91-013
Address 1142 "Pi aht'PPnt'l1 5=it'n:>F>t
ApplIcant Henry Yannark
Onglnal heanng dale May 8, 1991
Ongmal actlon May 8, 1991
Please state !he specIfIC reason(S} for the appeal See the attached letter to the Plarming wlirLission
fran Lawrence & Harding, dated May 6, 1991. Mr. Yannark contends that aJP Conditicn
~. 13 should be deleted in its entirety; Mr. Yannark ~s not satisfied Wl. th the
aITeI1drrents to this condit~on ado9ted by the Planm.ng G..aLlld.SS~on.
Furthenrore, 1J[.r. Yannark contends that Pr~am 12 (Le., Resolution No. 7385 and
Ordinance No. 1448 govern COP Condition No. 34.
!o'l..r. Yannark reserves the r~ght to supplenent the basis for this appeal pr~or to and durmg
the public hearing on this appeal.
'~;P; :' d If adddJOnll space IS needed. use backofbm.
SVVtlI .~~~LW,~ ~.,z-?#~ kit DaB May 21r 1991
T-rure-r.~~k'~ - --r L