SR-032685-12A
/
J
.
.
.
..,.
12-A
"AR 2 6 1985
..
'-I tJ 2--- 00 7-
C/ED:PJS:ca
Council Mtg: March 26, 1985
Santa Monica, Californla
TO: Mayor and Clty Councll
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Decislon of the Plannlng Commlssion Approving
Condltlonal Use Permlt 375, Tentatlve Parcel Map 16767,
ZA 4839-Y for a 3 Unit Condomlnium ProJect at 2618 Mon-
tana Avenue; Appellants: Councll Member David Epstein
and Rick Jones, Appllcant.
INTRODUCTION
Both Counell Member Epsteln and the appllcant, R1Ck Jones have ln
separate actions appealed ~he decislon of the Planning Commlssion
which attached a condltion requlrlng that one unit In the three
unlt project be deslgnated as an affordable unit. The appeal 18
limited to the issue of appllcatlon of Program 12 of the Houslng
Element (the inclusionary zonlng requirement) and whether the
Clty may be prevented from enforclng thlS reqUlrement because the
appllcant may have received incorrect informatlon from staff
about the appllcation of thlS requirement to the subJect project.
Staff acknowledges that there was a ffilsunderstand:tng about the
applicablllty of Program 12, and after further consultatlon with
t_he Cl ty Attorney, recommends that the declsion of the Plannlng
Coromlssion be modlfled and the appeal granted to delete the in-
cluslonary un1t requlrement from this proJect.
BACKGROUND
On March 4, 1985 the Plann~ng CornInssl.on approved CUP 375, TPM
16767,
ZA 4839-Y to permit construction of two addltional unlts
I~-A
MAR 2 6 ms
- 1 -
!
.
.
.
t'
"
and the remodel of an eXlst:ing s1.ngle family resldence for con-
dominlum purposes. The requested varlance was to permlt three of
the required six parklng spaces to be provlded In tandem, and to
permit the second story additlon to the existlng unit to utillze
the eXlstlng 16' -6" front yard setback I1.ne rather than the re-
quired 20' setback.
The proJect, descrlbed In detail In the attached Planning Commis-
sion staff report (Exhlbl.t C), conforms to all Munlcipal Code
requlrements wlth the exceptlon of tandem parklng and front yard
setback and is compatible with the surround1.ng ne1.ghborhood. The
project was recommended for approval. The issue which was raised
to the Planning Commlssion for lnterpretat10n and is the subJect
of thlS appeal 15 cons1stency w1th the General Plan Houslng Ele-
ment (Program 12).
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Program 12 of the Housing Element (attached as Exh1bit D) re-
quires that one un1t 10 a three unlt project be des1gnated as an
lnclus10nary unlt affordable to low and moderate lncorne persons.
The issue was whether the subJect project constitutes a two unlt
proJEct because only two un1ts are added or whether It is a three
unl t_ proJect because, as a result of "the condominlum subdl vi-
sion, and SUbstantial rehabllitatlon of the existing unit, three
legal ent1t_1es are creat_ed. A two unlt project is exempt from
the 1nclus1onary houslng requlrement i a three unl t proJect 1S
not.
- 2 -
~
.
.
.
y.
,.
Planning Staff Interpretation
As stated in the declarat~on presented to the Planning Commlssion
(Exhiblt E), the appllcant, on the advice of Plannlng and Zonlng
Dlvislon staff, viewed the proJect as a two unlt proJect, exempt
from the ~ncluslonary houslng requlrement. ThlS determinatlon
was based on previous lnterpretatlons of the lntent: of Program
12. On several occaSlons since the adoption of the Housing Ele-
ment, Development Reviews for apartment proJects wlth eXlstlng
un1ts on slte, adding no more than two unlts, have been approved
by the Plannlng Commission wlthout applying the lnclusionary re-
qUlrement. These include DR 151 (approved ln Aprll 1983), 1556
Harvard which added one unlt to three eXlsting; DR 163, 2438 5th
Street (approved in June 1983) which added two units to one ex-
lsting~ and DR 282, (approved in November 1984), 3129 6th Street
Wh1Ch added two unlts to an existing duplex. ThlS last project
provl.des t-~he closest similarl ty to Mr. Jones' project. The t-~wo
addltlonal unlts were deslgned to lDcorporate the existing duplex
resulting in one lntegrated apartment building structure, as is
the case In Mr. Jones' project. DR 282 was approved with no In-
c1uslonary unlt requlred and the lssue of compllance with Program
12 of the HousJ.ng Element: was ralsed In the staff report. The
lnterpretatlon of the lntention of Program 12 of the Houslng Ele-
ment that addltlons of two unlts or less to eXlstlng structures
are exempt was confirmed by thls approval at least ln regard to
apartment structures. To date no simllar condominium proJect had
been filed until Mr. Jones' request.
- 3 -
..
.
Councll Member Epstein based hlS appeal on two grounds. The
flrst lS that the developer had been adVlsed by staff that there
was no incluslonary requirement_ prlor to his making a flnanclal
commitment to the proJect. The City agrees that Mr. Jones was
advlsed by Planning Staff that no lncluslonary unlt was requlred
for hlS condominlum project.
.
Subsequently, dur1ng the reVlew of the project prlor to preparing
the staff report the Plannlng and Zoning Dlvislon Manager con-
sulted with the Director of Plannlng and the Deputy City Attorney
regardlng the lssue of the distlnct~on between two apartment
unlt_s added and two unlts added wlth a subsequent subdlvlsion
creatlng three legal entitles for sale. It was the position of
both the Deputy Cl ty Attorney and the Dlrector of Plannlng that
the creatlon of three condomlnium unlts from one eXlstlng and two
added constituted a three unlt proJect subJect to the lncluslon-
ary requlrements of Program 12. The staff report to the Planning
Cornmlsslon requested thelr lnterpretation on the matter. The
Commlssion approved the project wlth a requlrement for 1nclusion-
ary housing I conflrming the interpretation of the Director of
Plannlng and Deputy City Attorney.
.
Appllcatlon of Program 12 to the Subject ProJect
Council Member Epsteln I s second basls for appeal 1S that t_he
interpretatlon of the Dlrector of Plannlng and subsequently the
Planning Comnussion leads to an economically absurd result and
suggests that other interpretatlons which are more economically
reallstlc should be considered. The Planning ComrniSSlon in thelr
discusSlon determlned that because addlng two units also lnvolved
- 4 -
.
.
.
..
the substantlal remodel (addltlon of a second floor)
to the ex-
lsting unlt, the proJect fell within the appllcatlon of Program
12:
The lncluslonary requlrement shall apply to
all market rate housing whether resulting
from new construction. substantial remodel-
ing. or market-rate conversion of apartment
units, except that slngle famlly homes
shall be exempt... (emphasis added).
In add1tlon, because the subdlvision creates three legal entitles
for sale, the project lS a three unlt project:
If the appl1cation of the formula results
1.n less than a whole nUl11ber, 1. t shall be
rounded down to the nearest:. whole number,
except that a 3-unit project shall provide
at least 1 inclusionary unit... (emphas~s
added) .
It was further pOlnted out that the lntentlon of the Houslng Ele-
ment requirement that 3 unli:. projects are subJect to lncluslonary
requlrements was to encourage developers to make maxlrnum use of
resldenT_lally zoned propertles and discourage attempT_s to avoid
the requirement by bUlldlng fewer unlts on a lot than current
densltles would permit, resulting ln fewer houslng unlts produced
CltY-Wlde.
In thl s case allowable density 15 5 units plus a
State-mandated denlsty bonus of one unlt to offset the economlC
hardshlp which may be incurred by providlng one affordable UTIli:..
In the course of votlng for approval of the project wlth the 1n-
clusionary housing requ1red, some Commissioners ind1cat.ed
con-
cern that Houslng Element pollcles should be evaluated to ensure
that they provide economically feaslble results, but indlcated
that the current wording of the Policy apparent_ly provldes no
- 5 -
.
.
.
other way to interpret the requlrement for an affordable unit in
this case.
Followlng the appeal by Council member Epsteln, the Clty Attorney
independently revlewed the advice provlded by his office to the
Plannlng Commlsslon. Although the lssue is complex, the C1ty
Attorney belleves that there lS no substantial basis for distln-
gUlshing a two unit addition based upon the form of ownershlp,
The inclusionary progra~ should apply in both lnstances or not at
all. The reason for thlS can be best understood by examining the
varlOUS scenarios 1n WhlCh the lncluslonary program rnlght be ap-
pIled to a three unlt proJect:
1.
The new construction of three unl ts.
program clearly applles.
The lnclusl.onary
2.
Conversion of non-resldentlal space to resldential space.
The converSlon of non-resldential space to 3 or more
resldentl.al spaces would be subJect;. to the lncluslonary
program regardless of whether the new unlts are apartments
or condoffilnlums.
3.
The converSlon of an apartment to market rate condomlnl-
urns.
The converSlon of rental units to market:. rate con-
domlnlums not utll1z1ng TORCA procedures would require
application of the lncluslonary program. (Other provi-
Sl.ons of the Hous~ng Element and the neceSSl ty for Rent-.
Control Board approval make such converSlons unlikely.)
- 6 -
.
.
.
, ;,
~
4. The addi T_lon of three resldential un1 ts to an exist1.ng
bUllding. The addi t10n of three residentlal units to an
eX1st1.ng resldentlal or commercl.al structure requires ap-
pllcat10n of the lnclus~onary program regardless of
whether the unlts are apartments or condom~n1.ums.
5.
Addltlon of two apratment un1ts. Plannlng staff has con-
slstently 1nterpreted the lncluslonary houslng program as
1napplicabIe to the add1tlon of two apartment unlts to an
eX1stlng apartment structure regardless of the number of
the reS1.dentlal unlts already existlng.
6.
Addltlon of t:.wo condominium unlts. The present case con-
cerns the addltion of two condom1nlum unlts. Th1S actlvi-
ty has features slmilar to the addi t10n of two apartment
units for which the lnclus10nary program 1S inapplicable.
In the op1on1on of the C1ty Attorney, ident1cal treatment should
be glven to both the add1t1on of two apartment unlts and the ad-
dlt10n of two condominlum units. The proJects are substantlally
the same~ only the proposed form of ownership is d1fferent. In
th1S context, dlfference 1n treatment is not Justifled. A fur-
ther reV1ew by the Planning staff and the development of an 10-
clus10nary houslng ordinance lS the best forum to ensure unlfor-
m~ty of treatment 1n the future.
In ad,it~on, the appl1cant relied upon informatlon suppl1.ed by
C1ty staff in purchasing a property that the inclusionary program
was 1nappl1cable to h1S proJect. In most situations, the C1ty is
not legally bound by the advice given by staff since staff 1S not
- 7 -
.
.
.
. ,
authorlzed to change eXlsting law. However. ln the present case,
no C~ ty policy would be frustrated by grantlng approval of the
proJect in accordance wlth the advlce of City staff provided.
Accordingly, 1n llght of the 1nformation provided the appllcant
and the need for conSlstent appllcatlon of the inclusionary pro-
gram to Slmllar proJects, it lS the opinion of the Clty Attorney
that the lncluslonary program lS inappllcable to thlS proJect.
CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY
Under the provlslons of the Santa Monica Municlpal Code the Coun-
ell may affirm reverse or modify a determlnat10n of the Plannlng
Comm1sS10n regarding a Condlt10nal Use Permlt, Tentat1ve Parcel
Map and Var1ance and the Councll' 5 decision shall be final. In
conslderlng an appeal of a
CUP, Tentative Parcel Map, and
Varlance the Councll must make
required findlngs.
The Council
may also attach Condltlons of approval deemed necessary to pro-
tect the publlC health, safety, and general welfare secure the
obJectives of the rnas"ter plan, and assure that development wlll
be in accordance w~t_h the intent of the Comprehensive Land Use
Ordinance (Zonlng Code).
BU~~,!/FISCAL IMPACT
There wl1l be no budget or flscal lmpact resulting from this
appeal.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis and further reV1ew of applicatlon of
Houslng Element Program 12 to the subJect project wl.th the Clty
- 8 -
.
.
.
Attorney, staff respectfully recommends that the appeal be gran-
ted, the declsion of the Planning Commission be modif1ed to de-
lete the 1nclus10nary houslng reqU1rement, and that the following
Flnd1ngs and Condlt1ons be adopted by the City Council:
FINDINGS
1. The proposed proJect (hereafter "the proJect") includes
the addLtion of two new dwelling unlts to an existlng un1t
located on a 48' x 150' parcel at 2618 Montana Avenue in
the R-2 D1strlct. The eXlstlng unit would be remodeled to
add a second story and the exterior re-deslgned so that
all three units would feature a traditlonal rnedlterranean
deslgn style. The Pro] ect would be subdl vided for con-
dOffi1n1um purposes.
2. R1chard P. Jones ("Jones") is the owner of the subject
property and 1S the appllcantjappellant in the instant
proceed:tng.
3.
On November 21, 1984 Jones subm1f:.ted to the City's Plan-
n~ng and Zon1ng Di V1sion a Subdivision Appl1cat1on for
Tentative Parcel Map 16767, a Condltional Use Permit Ap-
pllcat10n for a condomlnlum proJect and a Var1ance Ap-
plicat10n to permit three of the requl.red SlX parking
spaces to be provided 1n tandem and to permit the second
story addi tlon to maintain the existing 16' -6" front yard
setback in lleu of the 20' -0" setback required by the
Munlcipal Code.
- 9 -
.
.
.
. "
4.
5.
6.
Prlor to fl11ng the above appllcations and prlor to Jones'
purchase of the subject property, Jones sought 1nformation
from Clty staff concerning whether an affordable unlt
would be requlred as part of the ProJect per Program 12 of
the Houslng Element of the C1ty'S General Plan. Jones was
advised by Plannlng and Zoning Div1sion staff that no such
requ1rement would apply to the project, based on prlor
lnterpretations and Planning Commlssion declsions for
simllar apartment bU1lding addit1ons.
In preparlng the Plannlng Comrn1ss10n staff report on the
Project, the Deputy Clty Attorney and D1rector of Planning
determined that due to the substantlal remodeling of the
exist1ng dwelllng, and the subdlv1s1on for condorninlum
purposes, the ProJect constltutes a three-unlt proJect and
was subJect to the lncluslonary housing requ1rement out-
lined 1n Program 12 of the City I S Hous~ng Element. The
s"taff report recommended approval of the project as sub-
m~tted but with an 1ncluslonary unlt, and requested Plan-
ning Comm1ssion conf1rmatlon that such a unit was required
by ~he Houslng Element.
On March 4, 1985 the Santa Manlca Planning Commlssion con-
ducted a publlC hear1ng on the applications flIed for
development of the project. In add1tion to the staff re-
port and proJect flle, the CommissJ.on consldered letters
In oppos1tion from nelghbors at 2622 Montana and 2526 Mon-
tana who ralsed concerns about traffic and noise problems
- 10 -
.
.
.
, ~
if a condoffiln1um replaced a slngle famlly home. The Com-
mlssion also heard testlmony from Jones' legal counsel who
lntroduced a declaration by Jones summarlZlng hlS dlSCUS-
Slons wlth City staff and stating that it w1Il not be
econoffilcally reasonable to proceed wlth development of the
Project if an inclusionary unit was required. Based upon
the fact_s and informatlon presented, the Cornmisslon ap-
proved the proJect as submltted with cond1tions includlng
a regulrernent for an incl uSlonary unl t as recommended by
the Deputy Clty Attorney and Dlrector of Planning.
7.
On March 5, 1985 Santa Monlca Clty Councll Member Davld
Epsteln flIed a t1mely appeal of t:.he Plannl.ng Commission
ln declsion pursuant t:.o Santa Mon1ca Mun1cipal Code Sec-
tl.on 9366 (b) .
8.
On March 8, 1985 Jones' legal counsel also flIed a t1mely
appeal pursuant to Santa Monica MUnl.Clpal Code Sectlon
9366(a) .
9. On March 12, 1985 the Clty Council voted unanimously to
consol1date the t_wo appeals and scheduled the matter for
publl.c hear1ng on March 26, 1985.
10.
On march 26, 1985 the City Councll conducted a publlC
hearlng on the appeal and consldered a staff report recom-
mend1ng that the appeal be granted and the Planning Com-
ffi1ss1on's decision be modlfled to delete the inclusionary
housing requirement. At the concluslon of the public
hear1.ng the Cl. ty Counc1.1 voted to grant the appeal and
- 11 -
.
modlfy the Planning CommlSSlon decislon for the followlng
reasons:
a. Whether or not add~ng two units to an exist~ng unlt,
Const1 tutes a "three unit proJect II W1 thln the meaning
of Housing Element Program 12 and therefore subJect to
Program 12, 1S not clearly defined In the text of the
Houslng Element. Until thlS dist1nctlon 1S clarified
ln an lmplementlng ordlnance, past precedent and prac-
tical results consistent with the intent of the Housing
Element must gUlde interpretation.
.
b. The proposed ProJect is not dlst1nguishable from Slffil-
lar proJects approved by the Clty except that it is a
condominlum rather than an apartment bUllding.
c. Program 12 of t:.he Houslng Element (at page 74) antlcl-
pates exemptlons from the appllcation of the 1ncluslon-
ary requirement to remodeling and conversion projects.
d. Jones received 1nterpretations on several ocassions
from City staff pr10r to hlS purchase of the subject
property that the Pro ject would not be subject to the
lncluslonary requlrement of Houslng Element Program 12.
Knowledge that the ProJect would be subJect to the re-
qUlrernent may have affected his decision about whether
or not to purchase the property.
.
- 12 -
.
.
.
e. Fairness and reasonableness suggests that where ap-
pllcatlon of Program 12 to the ProJect lS clearly un-
settled ln the language of the HouS1ng Element, and
where City staff provided Jones with a reasonable
lnterpretat10n based on precedent that Jones relled
upon ln purchasing the subject property, and where no
substantlal pub11C POllCY 1ssue arises if the inclu-
sionary unit 15 not requlred in this ProJect, that
Housing Element Program 12 should not apply to this
ProJect.
DECISION
Based upon the forego1ng flndings, the Clty Council of the Clty
of Santa t-10nica grants the appeal and mod1.fleS the decision of
the Planning Commission approvlng Tentative Parcel Map 16767 and
Condl-t:l0nal Use Permit 375 to develop a three-unlt condominlum
project, and Zoning Adminlstrator Case No. 4839-Y to permit:. three
required park1ng spaces to be 1n a tandem arrangement and for the
second story addltlon to retaln the eXlst~~ng 16' -6" setback of
the eX1sting dwelllng in lieu of the 20 I -0" setback requ1red by
the Mun1clpa1 Code. The Clty Counc1l further adopts the findlngs
and cond1tlons contalned in the March 4, 1985 staff report to the
Plannlng Commlsslon as ltS own, w1th the sole except10n of Inclu-
slonary Unit Cond1tlon Number One, WhlCh conditlon 18 hereby
deleted.
Prepared by: Paul J. Sllvern, Director of Planning
Carol Waldrop, Manager, Plann1ng & Zonlng Divlslon
- 13 -
Attachments:
.
Exhl.bl.t A -
Exhlbl.t B -
Exhib1t C -
Exh1b1t D -
Exhlbl. r_ E -
cc25
.
.
Letter of appeal from Council Member
Epsr.ein
Letter of appeal from Chrlstopher Harding
on behalf of R1Ck Jones
Planning Commlssion Staff report
February 4, 1985
for
Program 12 of the Housing Element of the
General Plan
DepOSl.tlon from Rick Jones
- 14 -
~
.
.
.
" '
DATE;
TO;
FROM;
SUBJECT:
~\.hfPt"\ ~
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMO
March 5, 1985
Paul Silvern, Director of Plann1ng
Counc11 Member David Epstein ~~~
Appeal of Planning Commlssion Action on Tentatlve Parcel
Map 16767, CUP375, ZA4839-y, 2618 Montana Avenue
I wish to apoeal the deC1Slon of the Plannlng Commlsslon
in thls matter.
The appeal 1S based on two grounds:
1. There are serious allegations by the developer that
prior to maklng a financlal commltment to thlS proJect he
was advlsed by plannlng staff that there were no 1nclus1onary
requirements. I belleve that thlS clrcumstance, if true,
creates a potential legal exposure for the Clty, and further-
more, may result in fundamental unfalrness lndependently
of the legal flSks.
2. The lnterpretatlon of our Houslng Element by the
city staff in thlS lnstance, leads to an economically absurd
result. If other lnterpretatlons are posslble that are more
economlcally real1stic, they should be followed. If no such
interpretation 1S possible. the Council ought to be aware of
the absurd result and inltlate modlfication of the POllCY as
soon as possible.
It is requested that the staff report specifically respond to
the appllcantls allegatlons regard1ng the advice given to h1m
by staff, and if the clalms of the applicant are not conceded
by staff, that all staff members who have a knowledge of this
proJect he present at the hearlngs to testlfy under oath, lf
necessary.
.
.~
. st
.
.
.
&A-h1b~\B
.~...r:.c
1<; CX) ~
6" ,q ~O'+
7lhodes, ilia loney, Hart, 3fullen
JakIe CJ Harding
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THIRD FLOOR
9'9 SANTA ..ONICA BOUU,VAFlD
POST OFFICE BOX 1069
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
HOWARD W RHOCES
.J W':"'L1AM MALO"lEY
C"IAR:"'ES R HA"lT,.JR
DENNIS"" MULLi::N-
.JOHN e .JAKLE
CHRISTOPHER M HARDING
Santa 3/onwtl, CaldomUl 9040fJ-IOfJf)
(213"1393-0174 395-4950
CITY OF COMMERCE
Los rlngeles. Call1orma
(213)723-6311.722-3662
KEITH A LOVENDOSKY
GREGORY .J KHOUGAZ
M....RK GA."'''' ETT
M;E.N"'ET~ L_ KUTCI-l ER.
REPLY TO
Uarch 8, 1985'
-J6759.1
OU R FILE NO
Secretary-of Planning COMmiss~on
Santa Monlca Plannlng CommlSSlon
1685 Main Street
Santa Monlca, Californla 90404
He: C.D.P. 375
Property Address' 2618 ~10ntana Ave.
Appllcant' R1Ck Jones
Dear Secretary of the Plannlng CO~~isslon:
ThlS letter is be1ng subnltted on behalf of the
appllcant, Hr. R1Ck Jones, as a fornal notice of appeal
filed pursuant to Santa ~-lonica Ordlnance :\0. 1321 and Santa
i!onica Hunlclpal Code Section 9148C frOM the Plannlng Cornml-
sSlon's declslon of March 4, 1085 requlrlng an lncluslonary
unlt pursuant to PrograQ 12 of the houslng elenent. The
appeal will be limlted to the applicatlon of Program 12 to
the subject proJect, includlng but not llffilted to the lssue
of equltable estoppel&
_ No appeal is belng filed from the Plannlng Commi-
ssion's approval of Tentatlve Parcel Hap 16767 or Z.A. 4839-Y
based upon the Plannlng Dlrector's representatlon that the
incluslonary houslng cond1tlon does not attach to these
approvals. However, should the 1ncluslonary houslng condltlon
in fact apply to the 'l'entatlve Parcel Hap and the Z.A., then
thlS appeal should be construed to include those appr~vals.'
Mr. Jones respectfully requests that this appeal
be set for a publlC hearing before the Santa Monlca City
--
.
. ~\
.
.
.
7lhodes, Jlaloney, Hart, ,1/ullen
Jak Ie GJ Harding
A. PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORN EYS AT LAW
Secretary of Planning COffiffilssion
March 8) 1985
Page Two
Cauncll at the meeting scheduled for March 26, 1985.
KLK:CHH:clc
cc: Rick Jones
Slncerely,
RHODES, BALONEY, HART, ~mLLEN,
JAKLE & HARDING
C )N~~- \~_ \\ ~_~
Chr1stopher ~. Harding J
.
.
.
. ;
, S ;;..-'J - F~ ~ '- -'
.t1C.t,-0(J~ 'Li 1
e..~\ 6 tic....
(
2A-
...
"
PLfu~NING AND ZONING UrVrSION
Commun~ty and Econom~c Development Department
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE: March 4, 1985
TO: The Honorable Planning Commisslon
FROM: Paul J. Sllvern, Director of Plannlng
SUBJECT: Tentatlve Parcel Map 16767, C.U.P. 375, Z.A. 4839-Y, To
Perml t Constructlon of Two Add~ tional Un~ ts and the
Remodel of an Existing Sihgle Fam~ly Res~dence for Con-
_doffilnlun Purposes and to Permit the Requlred Parklng to
be Provlded in Tandem and the Second Story Addltlon to
the EXlstlng Dnl t to Utl;Il.ze the EXlstlng Established
Yront Setback Llne, 2618 ~ontana Avenue, R2, Appllcant:
Rick Jones, Developer.
SU~~~~l' The proposal is for a Tentatlve Parcel Map, Condltlonal
Use Permlt and Varl.ance to remodel an eXlstlng reSldence and add
two unlts for conaomlnlum purposes on an R2 lot at 2618 Montana.
One ~ncluslonary unlt lS requlred ~f the Plannlng COmM1SS10n
makes the lnterpretatlon that the subdlvlslon lnto three units
makes the proJect subJect to Program 12 of the Houslng Element.
SlX p"lrklng spaces are provJ.ded, three of WhlCh are l.n tandem. ,)"^ -; <
~~ '- 'l; ~ '
The r 'A:ect 15 recommended for approval, Wl th condl tlons. . .-' ..\
(- \ ~
_ '_~~_ I...~
EX1S,' Conal. tlons. The 48 I x 150 I lot lS located mldblock on~. ~~.';.
the f th Sloe of Montana. There is a slngle famlly owner OCCU- ~
pled resldence eXlstlng on the lo-q with multlfamlly development ___
on each slde for the extent of thelblock and across Montana. An
alley tuns parallel to Montana beh~nd the site and another alley
perpendlcular to that, dead ends ~lIl1rnedlatelY behlnd the site.
Most of the propertles on the block have garages at or near the
rear property llne which in most cases extend the wldth of the
property.
~~~Eo~ed_?~2J~ct. The proposal is to add two unlts to the prop-
erty and through remodel of the existlng dwelllng lncorporate
them lnto a wedlterranean style condomln~um structure. The proj-
ect dwelll.ng wlll add a second story to the eXlstl.ng dwelllng to
provlde a 2,600 square foot, 3 bedroom unlt wlth a 2nd story
deck, ground floor den, and prlvate patlo. The 2nd story 1S
deslgned to meet the establlshed 16' 5" front setbacK line and
therefore, requlres a variance to reduce the front yard setback.
-AdJolnlng that unlt to the rear wlll be a two story 2,100 square
foot unit, also 3 bedroom Wl th deck, pa tlO and den space. The
thlrd unit lS 1,100 square feet all at the second floor level
above the common garage. This unlt has two bedrooms and a deck.
The ground floor garage has tandem parklng for 51X cars prov1d1ng
adequate parking for the unl.ts but requlrlng a variance to allow
- 1 -
.
,s
- ..
. I '
.
.
.
(
(
requlred parklng to be provlded In tandem rather than each space
belng lndependently accesslble. Trash enclosures are placed on
the east slde of the garages. The eXlstlng Eugenla hedge along
each slde property Ilne wlll be retalned and generous landscaplng
and llghted, concrete walkways wlll be added.
MunlClpal Code and Lan~_~~~_~lernent CQ~E~~~~~e.
Category
Land Use
Munlclpal Code Element
1 unlt per 1 unlt per
1 2 50 sq. ft. of 1500 sq. ft. of
lot area lot area
(5 unlts) (4 unlts)
3 storles, 40' 2 storles, 30'
2 stores, 30'
wlth loft
Prolect
Permltted Use
3 Unlts
Helght
Lot Cover acie
sa~e as 50%
r-1unlclpal Code
50% HaXlffium
Coverage
Setbacks
Frot"'tyard 20'
same as 16 1/2' -
Munlclpal Code EXlstlng Un1.t
Establlshed
Setback Llne
sane as 4' eXlstlng
Munlclpal Code 5+ for new
same as IS'
t>-lunlclpal Code
Sldeyards
Rc< frd
10% of wldth
of lot (4.8)
15'
The proposed floor plan conforms
least one bathroom ln each unlt
garage areas have securlty access
included ln the kltchen area.
to the requlrements that at
have operable windows, that
and that natural 11ghtlng be
Fees. This proJect is subject to a condoIDlnlum tax of $1,000 per
unl t and a Recreation and Parks (Qulmby) fee of $200 per unl t.
The proJect 15 exempt from the Houslng and Parks Mltlgatlon pro-
gram contalned In the adopted Land Use Element.
~EQA. ThlS prOJect lS categorl.cal1y exempt
of CEQA, Clty of Santa Monlca GUldellnes
(Class 3[14J).
from the prOVl.Sl.ons
for Implementatlon
General Plan Cornpllance. The project 1$ conslstent with the ~
pollcles and obJectlves of the Land Use Element pertalning to
rnultlple farnlly resldentlal areas in that thlS condomlnium proJ-
ect is des 19ned to conform with the scale and character of the
surrounding nelghborhocd. ThlS proJect requires the interpreta- +
tion of the Planning Commlssion as to its conformance wlth Pro-
gram 12 of the Hous1ng Element which requ~res that one unlt in a
- 2 -
.
.
.
, .
(
(
-----1
three unlt project be des1gnated as an 1nc1uslonary unlt afford-
able to low and moderate 1ncome faMllles. In cases where a un~t
eXlsts on slte and two unlts are added the proJect 15 consldered
as a two unlt proJect because only two un1ts are new and there-
fore the proJect lS exempt from prOV1S1.0nS of Program 12. In
th1.s case only two un1 ts are added but the added step of then
subdl vld1.ng lnto three legal ent1. ties for sale would appear to
necessltate redefinlng thlS proJect as a three un1.t prOJectt sub-
Ject to the provislons of Program 12 requir1ng one unlt to be
deslgnated as affordable. Staff has lncluded condltion
requlrlng the affordable unlt should the Plannlng Comm1SSlon In-
tepret the intent of Program 12 to require It. The wording of
Program 12 15 attached as Exhlblt A.
;
---
Analys1.s. The des1.gn and character of the proJect 1.5 compatible
W1. th the surrounding neighborhood. Even though current densl ty
would permlt more than three un1ts, the proJect Slze and scale is
consistent with the rest of the nelghborhood. The provlslon of
parklng at the rear with access from the alley lS conS15tent with
Land Use Efement POI1CY providlng the spaces ln tandem WhlCh lS
the only reasonable al ternat1 ve to provlde parking on a lot of
th15 narrow d1.mens1.0n. Staff recommer.ds approval of that
varlance request. The second story on the eXlst1.ng un1.t 1.5
deslgned to conform to the eXlst1.ng bUlldlng line at the front
Wh1Ch provides a 16.5 ft. setback rather than the requlred 20'.
Because thls reductlon of front yard wlll not 1mpact the charac-
ter of the ne1.ghborhood for Wh1Ch there are several 2 story
structures at a less than 20' setback and because malntalnlng the
bUlld1ng llne enables a more unlfled design (see north elevatlon)
staff recommends approval of the var1.ance to reduce front yard
setbc' \..
The .LJect lS well deslgned wlth approprlate detailing and
gener Is landscaplng and presents an appealing and well artlcu-
lated facade to the street and adJacent propertles.
Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of Tentative parce)'
Map 16767, C.D.P. 375 and Z.A. 4839-Y ln accordance wlth the fol-
low1.ng flndlngs and subJect to the condltlons below:
Tentative Parcel Map Findlngs.
1. The proposed subdlvislon, together with lts prov~sions for
lts de51gn and lmprovements. is conslstent w1th applicable
general and SpeC1.flC plans as adopted by the City of Santa
Monlca, speclflcally the denslty and urban design policle5
of the Land Use Element, the clrculation pollcles of the
Clrculat10n Element and the lncluslonary housing requlre-
ment of the Housing Element.
2.
The Sl te is physlcally SU1. table for the proposed type of
development in that the proJect wlll be developed ln ac-
cordance wlth the Land Use Element denslty standards and
Munlclpal Code property development standards of the R2
zone.
- 3 -
.
.
.
, .;
(
(
3. The Sl te lS phys ~cally su~ table for the proposed dens 1 ty
of development in that three
Slonary unlt wlll be prov~ded
Use Element dens~ty standards
of the Houslng Element and
provlSlon.
un~ts lncludlng one ~nclu-
~n accordance with the Land
of the R2 zone, Program 12
the State's denslty bonus
4. The deslgn of the subdlvis~on or the proposed ~mprovements
wlll not cause substantlal envlronmental damage or sub-
stantlally and avoldably lnJure f~sh or wlldllfe or the~r
habltat ln that the condomlolum proJect ~s categorlcally
exempt from CEQA.
5.
improvement
ln tha t the
typical of
The des~gn of the subdlvlslon or the type of
wlll not cause serious publlC health problems
proposed proJect is a condomlnlum proJect
development In the nelghborhood.
6. The deslgn of the subdivlslon or the type of improvements
w~ll' not confllct W~ th easements, acqu1.red by the publlc
at large, for access through, or use of, property wlthin
the proposed subdlvlslon in that the prOJect is a
condOffilnlum.
Condltional Use Permlt and Use. Pe~~l~_~l~~~~g~.
1.
The proposed use and locatlon are in accordance wlth good
zonlng practlce( In the publlC ~nterest and necessary that
substant1.al Jus~lce be done in that a multlple famlly
resldentlal condomlDlum lS typlcal of the klnd of develop-
\ment ln the neighborhood and lS a permltted use In the R2
Fane.
JTh€ proposed use is compatlble with eXlstlng and potentlal
uses Wl thln the general area, traffic or parking conges-
tlon wlll not result, the publlC health, safety and
general welfare are protected and no harm to adJacent
propertles wlll result in that 6 parklng spaces are pro-
Vlded on slte 10 a co~~on ground level garage wlth access
from the alley.
2.
Varlance Flndlngs f~~_T~~g~~~~k~~g.
1. The strlct applicatlon of the provisions of the Zoning
Ordlnance would result ln practlcal dlfflcul ties or un-
necessary hardshlps inconslstent with the general purpose
and lntent of the Zonlng Ordlnance (Artlcle IX, SMMC) In
that the narrow dimenslon of the lot prohlbits provldlng
park~ng In any other conflguratlon without slgnlflcantly
reducing developable lot area.
2.
There are exceptional Clrcu~stances or conditlons ap-
pllcable to the property lnvolved and to the intended use
and development of the property that do not apply general-
ly to other property in the same zone or nelghborhood in
that most other lots in the nelghborhood wlth multifamily
- 4 -
.
_r-$
,....
(
(
.
development prov~de parklng 10 che saPle r:anner or have
~nadequate parklng.
3. The grantlng of a varlance would not be mater~ally
detrlInental to the publlC welfare or lnJurlous to the
property or lmproveroents In such zone or nelghborhood 1n
wh~ch the property lS located ln that SlX enclosed parklng
spaces are prov1ded thus meetlng the park1ng demand gener-
ated by thlS proJect.
Varlance Findlngs for Reduced Front Yard Setback.
1. The strl.ct appllcatlon of the prOV1Slons of the Zonlng
Ordlnance would result in practlcal dlfflcul tles or un-
necessary hardships lnconSlstent with the general purpose
and lntent of the Zonlng Ordlnance (Art1cle IX, SMMC) 1n
that there is an establlshed 16.5 ft. front yard setback
and only a port~on of the second story reaches that 11ne.
The rema1nder lS at 20'.
2.
The grantlng of a varlance would not be materlally
detrlmental to the publ1C welfare or lnJurlous to the
property or improvements ln such zone or ne1ghborhood in
WhlCh the property lS located ln that allowlng a portlon
of the structure to extend to the establlshed bUlldlng
Ilne provldes for approprlate art~culatlon of the front
facade and lS consJ.stent WI. th the front setback Ilne of
other 2 story structures ln the area.
.
Condltlons.
~--~ll off-slte lmprovernents requlred by the Clty Eng1neer
jShall be lnstalled. Plans and speclflcatlons for off-slte
lmprovements shall be prepared by a reglstered C1Vll en-
glneer and approved by the Clty Engineer.
2. Before the Clty EngJ.neer may approve the flnal map, a sub-
dlvlsion lmprovement agreement for all off-slte improve-
ments requlred by the Clty Englneer shall be prepared and
a performance bond posted through the Clty Attorney's
offlce.
3. Prlor to approval of the flnal map, Condomlnlum ASSOCla-
tlon By-Laws (If appllcable) and a Declaratlon of CC & R's
shall be revlewed and approved by the Clty Attorney. The
CC & R's shall contaln a nondlscrlffilnat1on clause as pres-
ented 1n Sectlon 9392 (SMMC) and contain such prov1slons
as are requlred by Sectlon 9122E (SMMC).
4.
The tentatlve map shall explre 24 months after approval,
except as provided in the provls1ons of Californla Govern-
ment Code Sectlon 66452.6 and Sect10ns 9380-9382 of the
Santa MonJ.ca Munlcipal Code. Durlng this time period the
flnal map shall be presented to the C1ty of Santa Monica
for approval.
.
- 5 -
.'~
- ...
5.
.
6.
7.
(
(
The rlghts granted heLeln through approval of a cond~tlon-
al use perw~t, varlance and adJustment shall be effectlve
only when exerclsed In connectlon Wl th Tenta ti ve Parcel
r-lap 16767.
The developer shall provlde the Englneerlng Departent of
the Clty of Santa Monlca w~th one Dlzal Cloth prlnt
reproductlon and rnlcrcfl1m of each sheet of the flnal map
after recordatlon.
Payment of the Condorrlnlum Tax of
Qu~mby fee of $200 per unlt shall be
lssuance of bUlldlng per~lts.
$1,000 per unlt and
required pr~or to the
1.
Other Condltlons.
2.
.
Plans for
closures,
proval by
I
flnal deslgn, landscaplng, screenlng, trash en-
and slgnage shall be subJect to reVlew and ap-
the Archltectural ReVlew Board.
Mlnor amendments to the plans shall be subJect to approval
by the Dlrector of Plannlng. An lr.crease of more than 10%
of the square footage or a slgnlflcant change In the ap-
proved concept shall be subJect to Plannlng C0mr.11SS10n
ReVlew. Constructlon shall be 1n substantlal conformance
wlth the plans submltted or as modl.fled by the Plannlng
Corrnlsslon, Archltectural ReVlew Board or Dlrectcr of
Plannlng.
3. The rlghts granted hereln shall be effectl ve only when
\exercl sed Wl thln a per10d of one year from the effectl ve
~ate of approval. Upon the wrl~ten request of the appll-
Fant, the Dlrectcr of Plannlng may extend thlS per~od up
)to an addltlonal SlX months.
4. The appllcant shall comply Wl ~h all legal requlrements
regardlng provisions for the dlsabled, lncludlng those set
forth in the Californ1a Admln1stratlve Code, Tltle 24,
Part 2.
5. ProJect deslgn shall comply wlth the buildlng energy reg-
ulatlons set forth In the Callfornla Admln~stratlve Code,
Tltle 24, Part 2, (Energy Conservatlon Standards for New
ReSldentlal BUlldlngs), such conformance to be verlfled by
the BUlldlng and Safety Dlvlslon prl.or to lssuance of a
BUlldlng Permlt.
6. Openable wlndows shall be prov1ded throughout the project,
in a manner conslstent Wl th appl1cable bUlldlng code and
energy conservatlon requlrements.
7.
.
Street trees shall be malntalned, relocated or provl.ded as
requlred ln a manner conslstent wlth the Clty'S Tree Code
(Ord. 1242 CCS), per the speclflcations of the Department
- 6 -
(
(
.
of Recreat~cn and Parks and the Department of General Ser-
Vlces. No street tree shall be removed wlthout the ap-
proval of the Depart~ent of Recreatlon and Parks.
Incluslonar~nlt Condltlon.
Condom~niums.
1. The developer shall covenant and agree Wl th the C~ ty of
Santa Monlca to the speclflc terms, condltlons and
restr~ctions upon the possess~on, use and enJoyment of the
subJect property, WhlCh ter~s, condltlons and restrlct10ns
shall be recorded Wl th the LeJS Angeles County Recorder's
offlce as a part of the deeds and Covenants, Condl tions
and Restrictlons of Tract 16767, to ensure that oneaffor-
dable ~nlt lS provlded and malntalned over tlrne and
through subsequent sales of the property. An affordable
unl t shall be deflned as belng affordable to households
wlth incomes not exceedlng 120% of the (HUD) Los Angeles
Courity medlan lnCOflle, expendlng not over 25 % of monthly
lncome on houslnq costs, as speclfled by the Santa Monlca
Houslng Authorlty.
.
ThlS agreement shall be executed and recorded prlcr to the
lssuance of bUlld10g permlts. Such agreement shall specl-
fy 1) responslbl11tles of the developer for maklng the
unl t aV,allable to potentlal buyers and coord~natlng that
process wlth the Clty of Santa Monlca Houslng Authorlty,
and 2) responslblll tles of the Cl ty of Santa :.10nlca to
prepare appllcatlon for~s for potentlal buyers, establlsh
\crlterla for quallflca~lons, reVlew appllcatlons and pro-
Fide ellglble appllcants to the developer, and enforce the
~rovlSlons of the agreement.
Prepared by: Carol Waldrop
Dlvlslon Manager, Plannlng and Zonlng DlvlSlon
CW:nh TPM16767
.
- 7 -
.
s
.
.
.
(
(
~\f\;If>~r D_
~PE~ING OF THE PLANNING COM~ISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
C.D.P. 375, Z.A. 4839-Y, tentative parcel IDap 16767, 2618
Montana Avenue,
Applicant: R~ck Jones, Developer.
DECLARATION OF RICK JONES
I, Rick Jones, declare:
On or about November 1, 1984, the escrow for the
purchase ~f the real property co~~only referred to as 2618
Montana Avenue, Santa Monica, CA and legally descrlbed as lot 4
in book 4 of tract No. 3000 In the City o~ Santa Monica, County
of Los Angeles, State of Californla, as on the map recorded in
book 31, page 3C of Maps in the Office of County Recorder of said
county, was closed.
I am the de~7eloper of said property.
This escrow was opened approximately three weeks pr~or to
November 1, J984. At that time, I consulted with Carol Ledbetter
of the Santa ~onica Rent Control Board.
I indicated that I
planned to construct two new unlts on the property and to reroodel
the present unlt. ~s. Ledbetter confirmed to me that my con-
struction would not be subject to any rent control restrictions.
However, at that time, she advised me that I should be aware of
the inclusionary rulp- of the Santa Monica Houslng element.
Ms. Ledbetter descr1bed the rule to me and analyzed my proJect.
She lndlcated that she felt that my proposed development would
not subject Me to the lnclusionary un1t. She then advised that I
consult the Santa Monlca Plannlng Department.
- 1 -
t;,O?Al
.
.
.
l
, .
(
I next consulted Susan Frick of the Santa Monlca Planning
Department. We discussed the spec~flcs of my pro~ect, includlnq
lot size, number of unlts, parking, and the lnclusionary rule.
At that tlme, Ms. Frick advised me that because I was adding only
two units, I would not be subject to the inclusionary
requirement.
A few days later, the architect for the project advised me
that I faced a potential inclusionary requlrement. At that time,
I returned to the Planning Department anc spoke with one of the
staff members, again detalling the specifics of this proJect.
Again, that staff Member advlsed we that the prolect was exempt
from lncluslonary requirements because only two units were being
added.
Shortly thereafter, the lender for this proJect contacted me
and again a questlon was ralsed as to the incluslonary reauire-
went. Escrow was extended approxlmately one week and I returned
to the Planning Department. At that tlrne, I was again advised by
a staff member of the Planning Department that no lnclusionary
unit would be lmposed upon this proJect.
On or about Nove~ber 1, 198d, the escrow was closed. I
proceeded to submit the appropriate applications to develop the
condominium proJect. However, I lncurrec delays ln the process-
lng of the applicatlon. I then consul tee Carol Waldrop, Divlsion
Manager of the Planning and zoning Division. I w~shed to obtain
permlssion to commence construction of the pro;ect as apartment
units pending approval of my condominium application. After
- 2 -
~n?d~
.
.
.
, ~
(
(
consulting with the Santa Mon~ca City Attorneys' Office, Ms.
Waldrop aov1sed me that I could COMmence construction, hut that
the positlon of th~ City Attorneys' Office was that an lnclusio-
nary unit woulc be required. At that time, Ms. Waldrop apolo-
gized to me for the misguidance which I had received.
It will not be economically reasonable for me to proceed
with the development of thlS proJect should the Planning COID~is-
sian require an incluslonarv unit. At all times prior to the
purchase of, the sub~ect real property, I was advised as a
developer that this proJect would be exempt from the lnclusionary
requirements.
I declare under penalty of perJury that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed this 4th day of March, 1985, at Santa ~onlca,
Californla.
- 4 -
~n?41
.
,.
.
.
.
,.
~}Lt-Hf?l' E
PROGRAM 12:
D€velop a~ in~luslonary zoni~g program.
OBJECTIVE: Promote development of houslng affordable to low- and
rnoderate-lncome persons.
DESCRIPTION:
PART 1
The City shall adopt an inclusionary zoning progr am.
"The
inclusionary requlrement shall apply to all market !:"ate
housing whether resultlng from new cor.structlon, substantial
rernodellng, or market-rate convers~on of apartment units,
except that single faQily homes shall be exempt.
Comnerclal
and l!1dustr la1 developr.;.en t shall also sa t~sfy appropr ia te
lncluslonary houslng obl~gatlons according to the
determlnations of the on-going Clty study of same.
The inclus ionary requlrernent shall be set at a leve 1 so
that for every market rate houslng unit prov~ded .25 to .30
units of houslng affordable to persons with incomes at 120
percent or below the County median shall be provided. . If
the appllcatlon of the for~ula results ln less than a whole
number, lt shall be rounded down to the nearest whole
number, except that a 3-unit proJect shall provide at least
1 lncluslonary un~t. the City shall further develop a
mechanism to adJust the percentage requ1rernent upward or
downward so as to reflect changes ~n the need for an
incluslonary requirement, and regulatlons shall be developed
allowing flexlble appl ~ca tlon of inclusionary requiremen t s
73
~,. A.,
.
.
~
~
..
if signif~cant benef1ts can thereby be attained.
Approprlate regulatlons shall also be developed allowlng the
payment of a fee to the Clty in-lleu of actual lnclusionary
uni ts.
Approprlate regulations shall be adopted to allow
exemption procedures for remodel ing and conversions.
Such
exemptions shall not conf llct wi th other laws and shall
provide protectl.ons against tenant dl.splacement and for
preservation of the affordable housl.ng stock.
Inclusionary unl.ts produced shall be ownershl.p or rental
Unl.ts, and shall be sul?ject to controls to mal.ntain
affordability.
The l.nC1USlonary unlts shall be made affordable and
avallable to persons in the 0% to 120% of medl.an County
income so
that the econorr'l1.C mlX of tne Clty ln tnat
category is repllcated in the inclusionary unlts.
S tandar ds
shall be developed for provlslon of unl.ts wl.thl.n
sub-categories of the 0% to 120% of medlan lncorne ra:1ge.
The Cl ty shall encourage the provl.S ion 0:: unl ts wr. th an
approprlate number of bedrooms and other features so as to
best meet the needs of senior cr. tlzens, large famllies,
disabled persons, and persons w~th other speclal needs.
The relevant provlsions of State law, including Government
Code Section 65915-65918 shall be complied wlth in the
development of the incluslonary housing ordr.nance.
74
--