SR-072391-7B
-~
7-B
LVTM:PB:DKW:BAjap191013.pcword.plan
Council Mtg: July 9, 1991
Santa Monica, Califor~a
.JUL 9 1991
JUL 2 3 1997
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: 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 Vesting 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 ci ty 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 Commiss ion, 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 9 1991
JUl 2 3 1991
the construction of a two story, five unit residential
condominium 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 applicant's request (Attachment D) and the Planning
Commission maintained 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 proj ects 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 contention, the applicant's representative is requesting
that Condition No. 34 be amended to require the developer to
provide 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. 1448.
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 if 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
14.48 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 Condition 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 ~mbo, Associate Planner
planning Division
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
BA/PC/ap191013
- 4 -
Cay of
Santa Monica
Community and EconomiC Development Department
PlannJng and Zoning OlY1slcn
i213) 458-8341
APPEAL FORM
FEE: $'00.00
IA; (1 \ - L' \ I
Dale Red
AeceM!d by
A~No
~ /2.. I I'll
-s.......;
s \ -. o~ 1 C' 4'
Name Henry Yarmark c/o Lawrence & HardJ.n9
Addre~ 1250 SlXth Street, #300, Santa Man~ca, Ca 90401
Contact Person Kenneth L. Kutcher Phone (213) 393-1007
Please descnbe the project and declSlOn to be appealed Tlus pro-;ect is a :f1.ve-un:J.t condCI'lllmum 1Jrolect
which was approved on May~8, 1991. Mr. Yarrnark hereby appeals the ~s1.tion of CUP
Conmt1.on Nos. 13 and 34. Mr. Yarmark dces not apneal the aoproval of Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 50580, which becarre effective on May 20, 1991.
Case Number CUP No. 91-013
Adcltess 1142 F.i al1't-ppnt-h ~t-rPPt-
ApplIcant Henry Yiu:m:rrk
Onglnal hearing date May 8, 1991
Onglnal actlon May 8, 1991
Please state Itle specific reason(s) for the appeal See the attached letter to the Planning CuluJssion
fran Lawrence & Harchng, dated May 6, 1991. Mr. Yannark contends that CUP Condition
~o. 13 should l:e deleted m its entrrety; Mr. Yannark 1.S not satisfied with the
arrendrrents to this condition ad09ted by the Plarming Cut'I\ussion.
Furthenrore, ~1r. Yannark contends that Pr<:l9Tam 12 (i.e., Resolution No. 7385 and
Ordinance No. 1448 govern COP Condit1.OIl No. 34.
r-'"II'. Yannark reserves the right to supp1errent the basis for this appeal prior to and during
the pub11.c hearmg on this appeal.
:- /; _ (d It additional ~ IS needed. use back of am.
s"'na~t.W.. ~~~a1 kd Dale May 21, 1991
.~ -~~k -~ --, L