Loading...
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 --