SR-052284-12B
..
~O~ -005
r .i..... _
C/ED:CW;nh
Council Mtg.: May 22, 1984
Santa Monica, Californ~a
1:4 - B
MAY 2 2 11M
TO: Mayor and City Councl1
FROM: City Staff
SUEJECT: Appeal From a DeC1Slon of the Planning Commlsslon
Approvlng Development Review 216, Condltlonal Use
Permlt 362 for a 6 Unlt Condomlnium at 1941 Euclld
Street.
Introductlon
An appeal of the Plannlng Comrnlssion decislon approvlng thlS project
has been filed by the appllcant, Michael W. Folonls, based on the
hardshlp that wlll allegedly result to the appellant from the
requirement to provlde one unlt of the six proposed condominlum
unlts affordable for low to moderate lncorne persons as requlred by
the Housing Element of the General Plan.
Background
On January 30, 1984 the Plannlng Commlsslon approved DR 216/CUP 362
to permit construction of a SlX unlt condomlnlum project wlth a
condltlon that one unlt affordable to households wlth incomes not
exceedlng 120% of the (HUn) Los Angeles County median lncome be
provided. The project has a recorded Tract Map for 6 units and
conforms to all appllcable Clty Code requlrements for helght,
setbacks, parklng, and lot coverage. Current denslty standards ,~
Clty Councll Resolution 6385 and the draft Land Use and Circulation
Element would permit 5 units. However, a sixth unit was approved
as a denslty bonus In connectlon with the provisions of one afford-
able unlt under Government Code Sectlon 65915.
(~-B
MA't 2 2 1984
or
II *-" .
Mayor and City Council
~2-
May 22, 1984
The proJect ha~ been approved previously. On October 6, 1980 the
Planning Commlssion approved Tentative Tract Map 40150 for a
6 unlt condomlnlum bUlldlng. The Architectural ReVlew Board
approved bUlldlng and landscape plans on October IS, 1980. The
Clty Councll approved the Flnal Tract Map and a bUlldlng permit
was lssued on April 20, 1981 just prior to the adoptlon of the
Moratorlum.
In October 1981 the appellant entered lnto an agreement wlth the
Clty ~n connection w~th the granting of a hardshlp exemptlon. The
agreement provlded that the Developer would be exempted from the
buildlng moratorlUffi on the condltlon that the developer pay the
Clty of Santa Monlca Houslng Authorlty 5% of the gross sales price
of the condomlnlum unlts In lleu of providlng on slte lnclus10nary
units. A copy of the agreement 15 attached.
Because of difflculties obtalnlng funding for the project, the
appellant dld not inlt1ate construction, and the bUllding permlt
lapsed. Ordlnance 1251, which was adopted 1n June 1982,speclfies
that without a valld bUlldlng permit a hardsh1p exemptlon no longer
exempts a proJect from Development Review, and a proJect 1S subJect
to current requlrements.
(Ordlnance 1251, Sectlon 4h)
Because the buildlng perrn1t has expired, the proJect requires a
development perm1t and is subJect to current City requlrernents
lncluding the requ1rement to provlde 25 to 30% of the unlts for
affordable houslng. The appellant argues that his actual hardshlp
.~ .
Mayor and Clty Councll
-3-
May 22, 1984
contlnues and requests that because of the proJect's hlstory, the
Council conslder hlS clrcumstances and allow hlm to meet the lntent
of provldlng affordable houslng by reduclng the prlce of one unlt
to approxlmately $132,000 rather than to the $78,000 price set
by the Clty'S formula.
In approvlng the project the Plannlng CommlSSlon lndlcated that lts
Jurlsdictlon dld not lnclude determinlng hardship and that lt would
approve the proJect accordlng to current requirements to provlde
an lncluslonary unit, the priclng of whlch was to be determlned
by the demand-based formula applied by the Clty'S Housing Dlvlsion
to similar proJects. ThlS formula prlces a typical two bedroom
condominlum at $78,000 as follows:
L. A. County
medlan lncome
for famlly of
four
=
$27,400 (HUD)
Income range for
"moderate income"
=
101-120% of County medlan income
Bedroom adjustment
formula
=
.95 (2 bedroom unlt)
Formula for establlshlng sales price (based on the formula
used by the California Coastal Commlsslon)
2.5 x Medlan Income x Income Range x Bedroom AdJustment =
2.5 x $27,400 x 120% x .95 = $78,090
(selllng price of a two bedroom unlt affordable to
moderate lncome persons)
The appellant proposes lnstead to honor hlS orlg1nal agreement wlth
the City, described above,but rather than paying an In-lleu fee to the
. . .
Mayor and Clty Council
-4-
May 22, 1984
Clty, would apply a percentage of proflt to reduclng the cost of one
unlt WhlCh would result In a selllng prlce of approxlmately $132,000,
a prlce WhlCh is contrary to all commonly accepted lending crlterla
about what a famlly of 4 earnlng $27,000 can afford to pay for houslng.
The appellant contends that the $132,000 prlce is comparable to prlces
affordable to moderate income households ln other JurlsdlctloDS;
however, has offered no proof or comparable data.
Plannlng staff requested an oplDlon from the Clty Attorney as to
whether, on the baS1S of the hlstory of th15 proJect and the appll-
cant's clalm of contlnulng hardshlp, the issue of hardshlp would
]ustlfy not regulrlng conformance to the City's incluslonary houslng
requlrement. Clty Attorney Informal Oplnlon No. 84-27 states:
In the appeal, the question of hardshlp may not be raised.
The appllcant's hardshlp exemptlon has expired. Should the
applicant desire to pursue thlS matter further, a new appll-
catlon for hardshlp would be requlred to be flIed. However,
the hardship appllcation would not be of asslstance to the
app11cant at thlS late stage. The appllcant's former
conditional use permlt has expired. Accordingly, in order
to develop the property, a new conditlonal use pernlt lS
requ1red. Accordingly, the sole remedy of the appllcant
15 to obtaln a permlt withln the current proceedlngs.
The DR/CUP have now been approved by the Plannlng Commlssion wlthin
current proceedlngs but the appellant 15 not willlng to accept the
City's requlrement ln cond1tlon #8 (see attached state~ent of Offlclal
Action) for the terms of provlding the affordable unlt. The appellant
argues that by reducing the prlce on one unlt, he compiles wlth the
1ntent of provldlng an affordable unlt but under prlclng crlter~a
dlfferent from the Clty'S crlterla~ To do so, however, would be
Mayor and City Council
-5-
May 22, 1984
lncons~stent wlth other proJect approvals, would be contrary to all
canventlonal underwrltlng criterla, and contrary to the Houslng
Element of the General Plan.
Clty Council Authorlty
Under the prov~sions of Sectlon 6 of Ordlnance No. 1251(CCS) the
Clty Councll may afflrm, reverse or modlfy any determlnation of
the Plannlng Commlsslon ln regard to an Interlm Development Permlt
and the declslon of the City Councll shall be flnal. In approvlng
an applicatlon the Commlsslon or Council must flnd that:
1. The Development is conslstent with the flndlngs and purpose
of Ordinance No. 1251(CCS).
2. The proposed plans comply with eXlstlng regulatlons contalned
ln the Munlclpal Code except as noted.
3. The existing and/or proposed rlghts-of-way for both pedestrlan
and automoblle trafflc wlll be adequate to accommodate the anticlpated
results of the proposed development lncludlng off-street parklng
faCllltles and access thereto.
4. The existlng and/or proposed publlC and/or prlvate health
and safety facilltles (lncludlng, but not 11mlted to, sanltation,
sewers, storm dralns, flre protectlon devlces, protectlve services,
and publlC utilltles) wlll be adequate to accommodate the anticlpated
results of the proposed development.
5. The proposed development wlll not prejudlce the abillty of
the Clty to adopt a revlsed land use element.
6. The proposed use and locatlon are ln accordance wlth good
zoning practlce, in the publlC lnterest and necessary that
substantial ]Ustlce be done.
7. The proposed use is compatlble w~th existlng and potentlal
uses wlthln the general area, trafflc or parking congestlon will
not result, the publlC health, safety and general welfare are
protected and no harm to adjacent properties wlll result.
f
Mayor and Clty Councll
-6-
May 22, 1984
FlnanClal Impact
The recommendation presented In thlS report does not have a budget/
f1nanc1al impact.
Recornmendat1on
In the absence of any credlble evidence to support the appellant's
assertion that a $132,000 dwelllng unlt lS affordable to low/moderate
lncome persons, to malntaln conslstency with prevlous Plannlng
CommlSSlon actlons requlrlng affordable houslng to be prlced accord-
lng to the above descrlbed formula, 1t 1S respectfully recommended
that the appeal be denled and that the Plann1ng Commlssion approval
of the proJect accordlng to the orlginal cond1t1ons (attached) be
afflrmed, the affordable unlt to be pr1ced accordlng to the C1ty'S
standard formula.
Prepared by: Carol Haldrop
Attachment: A. Agreement between the Clty of
Santa Monlca and Eucl1d Hab1tat.
B. Plannlng Commission Statement of
Offlclal Act1on.