SR-402-002 (12)
\
/It? ~ ~tJt/-z
C/ED: PJS: Rr-1: nh
Council Mtg.: Dece~ber 11, 1984
Santa Monlca, Ca11fornla
TO: Mayor and Clty COUTIcll
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Plannlng CommJ.SSlon Actlon DenY1ng Develop-
ment ReVlew 254 and Zonlng Adnunlstrator Case 4758-Y
for an Eight Unlt Apartment BUlldlng at 1535 18th
Street.
INTRODUCTION
ThlS lS an appeal from a determ1natlon of the Planning CommlSSlon
on September 10 I 1984, to deny an appllcatlon by Mr. Yousef
Yousefzadeh for a Development Revlew Permlt and a Varlance of
Denslty for an elght unlt apart~ent bUlldlng at 1535 18th Street
In the R2 Dlstrlct.
The appeal lS by the contractor for the
property owner.
ProJect details are presented In the attached
Plannlng Cornmisslon staff report.
Staff recowmends that the ap-
peal be denied and the deC1SJ.on of the Plannlng CO~IDlsslon
afflrmed.
BACKGROUND
The subJect proJect conslsts of a proposed elght unJ.t, two story
apartment bUlldJ.ng containlng four one-bedroom and four two-
bedroom unlts.
Santa Monlca Munlclpal Code Sectlon 9108B.3
Ilmits the maXlmum number of resldentlal unlts permltted on the
vacant 50' x ISO' R2 DistrJ.ct slte to SlX unlts.
Under lnterlITI
development standards contalned In Resolutlon 6385 (CCS), ln ef-
fect prlor to adoptlon of the new Land Use Element on October 23,
1984, the maX1IDum number of unlts was IJ.ffilted to flve.
The adop-
ted Land Use Element malntaJ.ns the the same reSldentlal denslty
- 1 -
standards contalned in Resolutlon 6385.
Under Program 12 of the
Houslng Ele~ent at least 25% of all unlts must be affordable to
low and moderate incorre lndl vlduals and famll1es.
Assumlng a
standard flve unlt proJect on an R2 lot, the maXlffium number of
unlts permltted by the Land Use Element together wlth the State
mandated denslty bonus for affordable houslng would be SlX unlts.
Thus, the proJect appllcatlon included a variance request to ex-
ceed by two the maXlmum number of unlts permltted in the
Munlclpal Code as well as a Developroent Revlew request to exceed
by three the number of unlts permltted by Resolutlon 6385.
Staff recommended that the Plannlng Commlss10n deny the proJect
based on a lack of eVldence that there was any unlque Clr-
cumstance or hardshlp sufflcient to warrant lssuance of a
varlance to exceed the allowable number of unlts.
The Comrusslon
voted unanlmously to deny the proJect based on the followlng SlX
speclflc flnd1ngs contalned 1n the attached Statement of Offlclal
Actlon.
Development Review Findin~s.
1. The development is not conslstent W1 th the flnd1ngs and
purpose of Ordlnance 1251 as set forth below.
2. The proposed plans do not comply wlth eXlstlng regulatlons
conta1ned 1n the Mun1clpa1 Code 1n that the proJect con-
talns two more resldentla1 unlts than the maX1ffium permit-
ted per Sec. 9108B.3 (SMMC).
3. The proposed development wll1 'preJuclce the ab111ty of the
Clty to adopt a revlsed land use element In that the proJ-
ect contalns three more reSlcentla1 unlts than the QaXlnUm
permltted per Resolut1on 6385 and the Flnal Draft Land Use
Element as approved by the Plano1ng Co~mlss1on.
- 2 -
Var1ance F1ndings.
1. The strict appl1cation of the provls lons of the Zoning
Ordlnance would not resu 1 t 1n practical d1ff1cul tles or
unnecessary hardshlps 1ncons1stent w1th the general pur-
pose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance (Art1cle IX, SMMC)
1n that there 15 no reason the subject slte could not be
developed 1n a manner conslstent wlth R2 Distr1ct
standards.
2. There are no exceptlonal Clrcumstances or condl tlons ap-
pllcable to the property lnvolved and to the 1ntended use
and development of the property that do net apply general-
ly to other property ln the same zone or nelghborhood in
that the site 1S a typ1cal, standard-S1zed R2 lot.
3. The grantlng of a var1ance would be materlally detr1mental
to the publlC welfare or 1nJurlous to the property or 1m-
provements 1n such zone or nelghborhood 1n WhlCh the prop-
erty 1S located in that the resul tlng number of unl ts
would exceed the number of unl ts on any other lot on the
same block and be more than double the average of 3.4
un1ts per lot on the same block.
In hlS letter of appeal, (attached hereto) the appl1cant refers
to a slx-unit condominlum project WhlCh rece1ved tentat1ve Map
approval by the Plannlng CommlsS1on on November 3, 1980 (TT
40971) .
A flnal map was never processed or recorded, and the
tentatlve wap has exp1red.
The appllcant states that a SlX un1t
condominlun proJect lS "not Just1f1ed" and that 1t 1S not
economlcally feas1ble to construct a SlX un1t apartment bU1ldlng.
Staff bel1eves that thls h1story 15 not relevant to a reVlew of
the presently proposed proJect and should not have a bear1ng on
any ceterwlnatlon.
The 51 te 15 an unemcunbered, vacant, and
tYP1cal R2 Dlstr1ct lot ar.d should be subJect to the same
developnent standards appl1ed generally to other propert1es 10
the same zonlng dlstrlct.
- 3 -
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendat~on presented 1n th1s report does not have a
f1nanC1al or budget 1mpact.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Cauncll may aff1rm or reverse the determ1nat1on of the
Plann1ng Comm1ss1on.
An act10n to reverse the determ1nat1on of
the Plann1ng Conuniss1on would require approval of appropr1ate
f1nd1ngs and certa1n required conditions of approval.
RECOMMPNDATION
It lS respectfully recommended that the appeal be den1ed and the
determlnat10n of the Plannlng COmffilSS10n be afflrrred on the bas1s
that the P1ann1ng Cornrniss1on acted properly and reasonably 1n
rnak1ng ltS determ1nat1on.
Prepared by: Rlchard Mllls, ASSlstant Planner
Plannlng and Zonlng Dlvls10n
Commun1ty and EconomlC Development Department
Attachments: 1. Letter of appeal dated September 27, 1984
2. Plann1ng Cornrn1SS1on Statement of Off1clal
Actlon dated September 17, 1984
3. Staff Report dated September 10, 1984
CC8
I
- 4 -
(
(
RAD CON"ST. CO. I~C.
11520 SA...'.' VICE~!E BLVD
sum 209
LOS A..'l"GELES. CAUFOR...'\IA 9OO-W
(213) 207 .8888
'Ii 75 co P~f (~/2.."iE]~
R~c.
Sept. 27, 1984
Hr. PAUL SILVERN
Ref: D.R. 254
and Z.A. 4758-Y
Director of Plannlng Department
Clty of Santa Monlca
Dear Sir,
We wlsh to appeal the dec~slon made by PlannlTIg COCffilsslon on
september 10, 1984, regarding our re8uest for 8 LL~lts ap,artment for
the property at 1535 18th St. , Santa Monlca.
~e st~on5ly feel that lS totally handshlp ~or the owners to keep a~
ur.developed lot for over 4 years.
At the present condltlon, lt lS not Justi:~ed to build a 6 unlts condo-
min:uTI as was granted wlt~ tract ~ap Ko. 40971; and econo~lcally ~s ~ot
feasible the constructlon of the 6 unlts apJartnent.
Sincerely yours,
,d'l ~ ~~,L ;t~_l/v~~
Darloush RahlOlan
(
r
~
ST,,;'T~~!=:~:-T OF OFF:CI~-;~ ACTI8~J
?POJ=C~.
NmlSER:
Ii:R 754 ZA 4758-Y
LOCATION
1535 lath Street, ~
A?P~ICA~T: Yousef Y~usefzadeh
B,SQI;EST:
E1g~t ~n1t Ap?rt~ent BUlld~~;
Ph~N~I~G CC~r1ISSIO~ ACTIO~.
9/10/84
DATE
Approved based on the ~ol:cw~~g f1rd1~gs and
subject to the CCr.c1t1ons below
X Denled
Ot!1e!:"
DevelcpFent Rev~ew Fl~cln~
1. The develop:rer't lS not cons1stent ..,1 th t~"e :=1 "1C1ns;S and
purpose of Ord~~ance 1251 as set for~~ below.
2. The proposed plans co r.ot cor.ply w1th eX1st1~g reg~lat1GnS
contaJ.':ed 1n the liun1c1pal Code 1~ that t'1e prc:ect ccn-
ta1ns two more reslcent1al un1ts than the naX1nUTI peY71t-
ted per Sec. 91083.3 (S~~C).
3. The proposed cevelop~ent wlll pre:uC1ce t~e ab111ty of t~e
Clty to acopt a rev1sed land use elener.t 1n tpat tre prOJ-
ect conta~ns t~ree ITOre reS1Gent1al un1ts than the maX1-un
pernltted per Resolut1on 6385 and the ?1nal Craft Lard Gse
Elener.t as approved by the Plarnlng Conc~SS10n.
Varlance Flndl~gs.
1.
The S,-Y1Ct appllcatlcr:! of the provlslon5 of tl'e ZOnl:lS
Ord1narce would rot result 1'1 practlC2.~ d1::f1cul>:'le5 or
urnecessary hardsh~ps l.ncons lstent ',,/1 t'l t:"1e general pt.:r-
pose apd l~tept of ~'le ZOfl1ng Ordl~ance (Art1Cle IX, S~.~C)
1n that there lS no reason the sU~Ject slte could rot be
developed In a rranner cons1stent wlth R2 D1strlct
standards.
- ~ 2.
'There are no exceptlor.al Clrcu;rstance s or CC'1dl t::.ons ap-
pl1cable to the property lnvolved and to the ::.ntended ~se
and develop~er.t o~ ~he property that do nOt apply ser:!eraL-
ly to ether property 1n ,the same zone or nelgrbor~cod 10
that the Slte 15 a typlcal, standard-s1zed R2 lot.
3.
T'le grant1ng of a var1ance would be r.ater1ally detrlre"ltal
to the p~bllC welfare or ::.nJurlcus to t'le prcperty or 1--
prove~ents 1n suc~ zone or ne~grberpood ~n wr::.c'l tre prop-
erty lS lecated 1n that tl"'e resultlng n1.:'"lDer af urlts
wou:Ld exceed the nL:f1ber of unl ts 0'1, any ether let o~ t.P e
same bloc"'" ar.d be rare than double the average of 3.';
unlts per lot on tr.e same block.
'1_7~t~~~_0-------=
Da L.._ l..Jj "__... '.:1"':"_ oJerSOll
kT1N6t - '\
"
(
(
7A
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
Commun~ty and Econom~c Development Department
M E M 0 R A ~ DUM
DATE:
September 10, 1984
TO:
The Honorable Planning Conm~SS10n
FROM:
Paul S~lvern, Plann~ng Dlrector
SUBJECT:
DR 254, Z.A. 4758-Y, 1535 18th Street, R2, E~ght Un~t
Apartment Bu~ldlng, Yousef Yousefzadeh.
Summary. This 1S an applicat~on for a development review perw~t
and a dens~ty varlance to construct an elght un~t apartment
bUlldlng on a vacant R2 lot. Appllcatlon lS by Yousef Yousef-
zadeh for RAD Construction Company. Staff recommendatlon 1S for
denlal.
EXlstln9 Condltlons. The slte lS a vacant 50' x ISO' R2 lot le-
cated on the east slde of 18th Street between llght lndustrlal
uses along Colorado AVenue to the south and comnerclal develop-
ment along Broadway to the north. One-story cottages and apart-
ments predomlnate along the resldentlal portlon of 18th Street,
al though there are also some two-story resldentlal bUlldlngs on
the block. IITnedlately to the south of the slte is a four unlt,
one-story cottage apartment. A one-story slngle faml1y dwelllng
s~ts to the north. F1ve small one-story dwell1ngs are located
dlrectly across the alley to the east, whlle one-story dwelllngs
are across the street to the west. There ~s a narrow, abandoned
curb cut and dr1veway at the south end of the 18th Street
frontage. Allan-street parking spaces were occupied on the
weekday afternoon of the staff s~te V~Slt.
Proposed ProJect. This e~ght unit, two-story apartment proJect
conSlsts of four 646 sq. ft. one-bedroom unlts and four 832 sq. ft.
two-becroom un~ts. 11 total parklng spaces are provlded, six in
a seml-subterranean garage accessed fro~ 18th Street and flve at
grade In the rear, accessed from the alley. The un~ ts would
front on an 11' w~de sideyard on the south, WhlCh would serve as
a buffer to the adJacent cottage apartments. An 8' sldeyard
would be provlded on the north.
MunlClpal Code, Interlm Develo~ment, and General Plan Confor-
mance. The proJect meets Code and Interlffi property development
standards except for the nunber of unlts proposed. Sec. 910BB.3
(Sm'1C) llffilts the Slte to no [['lore than slX unlts (based on one
unlt per 1,250 sq.ft. of lot area). Resolutlon 6385 and the
Final Draft Land Use Element permit no more than five units (or
- 1 -
~
(
(
SlX unlts for proJects provldlng one lncluslonary unlt per Pro-
gram 12 of the Houslng Element and emploYlng a density bonus al-
10catlon). The followlng chart surnnarlzes Code, Interlm and
Project speciflcatlons:
Code
Draft L.U.E./6385
ProJect
Unlts (max.)
6
5
8
Helght (max.)
2 storlesj
30'
2 storlesj
25'6"
Lot Coverage (max.)
60%
50%
41%
Front Yard (mln.)
20'
20'
Slde Yards (min.)
7'
8' and II'
Rear Yard (mln.)
15'
22'
ParKlng Spaces
(mln.)
10
11
Per Sec. 9129F.IA, parklng requlrements for apartments are based
on the square footage of the unlts. The small Slze of the pro-
posed unlts results In a reduced nu~ber of requ1red parklng
spaces. The Parklng and Trafflc Englneer has requested that the
subterranean garage layout be revlsed to permit eaSler clrcula-
tlon. ThlS can be accompl1shed wlthout affect1ng the exterlor of
the bU11ding. F1nal plans wlll requ1re the approval of the Park-
ing and Traff1c Eng1neer.
CECA Status. Categor1cally Exempt, Clas s 3 (14) , Santa Mon1ca
GU1del1nes for Implementatlon.
Analysis. Res1dent1al denslty lS the maJor lssue ralsed by th1S
proposal. The proJect exceeds Code standards for maX1mun nu~ber
of unlts by 33% and Interlffi standards by 60%.
Whlle the Plannlng COllUU1SSlon approved an elght unlt apartment
bU11dlng on an R2 lot in December, 1983 (DR 197, 1934 18th
Street), the two proJects are dlst1nct 1n that the earl1er case
lnvolved a long h1story of hardshlp cla1ms. The present proposal
lS a new appllcatlon for development of a typlcal R2 lot. There
is no unlque circumstance or hardshlp to warrant issuance of a
varlance to exceed the allowable number of unlts. (The appl~-
cants were informed of the Clty's dens~ty standards well 1n ad-
vance of formal submlttal. Nevertheless, they requested that the
matter be submltted for COffirr-1SS10n rev1ew.)
For the proposed e1ght unlt bUlldlng, PrograM 12 of the Houslng
Element would requlre two incluslonary unl ts. Slnce the elght
llnlts exceeds allowable denslty, no add1tlonal dens~ty bonus 1S
mandated by state law.
- 2 -
.-
(
(
Archl tectural deslgn of the bUlldlng would need careful review
and reV1S10n as part of an Archltectural Rev1ew Board reV1ew 1n
order to H[1prOVe upon the present bas1c boxl1ke appearance and
make the des1gn more compatlble w1th the ad]Olnlng res1dences.
It also should be noted that park1ng would be accessed from both
the alley and the street, and would necess1tate a w1der, relo-
cated dr1veway and curb cut on 18th Street.
RecoITlIllendat10n.
ded that DR 254
f1nd1ngs:
Based on the above, it lS respectfully recommen-
and Z.A. 4758-Y be den1ed w1th the follow1ng
peve~oVMent Review Flndings.
1. 'The development is not cons1stent w1th the f1ndlngs and
purpose of Ord1nance 1251 as set forth below.
2. The proposed plans do not cOwply wlth eX1st1ng regulat10ns
contained 1n the Mun1c1pal Code 1n that the proJect con-
talns two more resldentlal unlts than the maX1rnum permlt-
ted per Sec. 91088.3 (SMMC).
3. The proposed development w11l preJudlce the ab1l1ty of the
C1ty to adopt a revlsed land use element 1n that the proJ-
ect contalns three more resldent1al units than the maXlmun
perm1tted per Resolutlon 6385 and the Flnal Draft Land Use
Element as approved by the Plann1ng Comm1ss1on.
Var1ance F1nd1ngs.
1. The strlct appl1catlon of the prOV1Slons of the Zon1ng
Ord1nance would not result 1n practlcal d1fficul t1es or
unnecessary hardshlps 1ncons1stent w1th the general pur-
pose and 1ntent of the Zon1ng Ord1nance (Art1cle IX, SMMC)
in that there 1S no reason the sUbJect slte could not be
developed 1n a manner ccnS1stent w1th R2 D1str1ct
standards.
2. There are no except10nal Clrcumstances or condl tlons ap-
pl1cable to the property involved and to the 1ntended use
and development of the property that do not apply general-
ly to other property 1n the same zone or ne1ghborhood 1n
that the site 1S a tYP1cal, standard-slzed R2 lot.
3. The grant1ng of a var~ance would be mater1ally detrlmental
to the publ1C welfare or 1nJurlous to the property or 1ro-
provewents 1n such zone or ne1ghborhood ln Wh1Ch the prop-
erty 15 located 1n that the resul tl.ng nUI"ber of unl. t.s
would exceed the number of un1ts on any other lot on the
same block and be more than double the average of 3.4
unlts per lot on the same block.
Prepared by: Rlchard M11ls
Asslstant Planner
- 3 -
I · ,
I I
I I
~ '..I ~
\ ~ If' ----~::--- S
~I \Ill
. I a~ I J'
l'........ _
. D-
-- .I r:l
; i ~: <<- 11l1;2)~,
+ {I".ft
----t · - . v:r
. . ~
/ -- l,.D .]
Dq", '~1'1'"
-y
l.-g
I II 1 .f
. ".r,I"!!'... ..
, ~-. ~~~
~~TF'
-J", --ICr.
I..... h-'
'~# ....1- "
~.c' ~'*
?",. I
htr~., L ""11~
t4'.-. r lf " I
... t.j _.~_. S ~
fp 'f~- ~ ,~"
~ v. ,. h~: ..
......_ -11("+---
.
T'
4::
A
~
u
c;:.d
co
I
b
\
I:
"
-
.
,
NntI .. 'TO
$T~C YARD
,. J
1#9 1"45
\8~ ~T,
., Jl
II
NT
--
~.
. S
~
..~~,}
(
fY1Jf
~M IS46 IJU
M~a
@~ ''"'"
I
(
19
,s~
I ,.,
/91.
'RI
,.91
I
d,1
,
,
,
,
I
I
I
I
.
.
,
J
PRO.JECT
Ipw~ ~,,~
~
~.~
/,,,, I ,.,'
g
!,
@
.I$J.J
~
"l
/RJ7
1S1"-M
fA
~
124
/.!'II" IS.1l
r"',
,#
e-:J ~u
I !
S~NrA MONICA CAL N f
- ~ b~:.~'-t-
@' I
dR;l.S-# ...1 b.'''eJ.
r,..,.;1 .,~ ~'~ ~""..
I I ~J1;:"- ;J
...N"'QI"S
I
, ii, .
: , M .... ~~
, ~~..::;" I .... .....01-." S-
o I . f .
_......, t;:; 8.WP t
f' ...~- -e;; .
~
.
i
6.U''13
Qa
1"'1
~
r ,r
.
...
j
~
I :
..
SITE
" @
-If
.D
.
@
N".S#
~I
~
-r-.... ~
PA1tIt.
,SJI
Is~1
'.F.l1
-
I
i.1 ~
(tl i
t' ~
~ t, l
-=- Jrl" --_!... U.
~ ~L;' ~ f
1 . !" " I
~ ~oq..".,
I
I
I
IMtIC'N
~"OP
i ~ ....
~
i .
1 - . e
InY 15';' .-..:IN
~
~ @r
~ 0
~~"J~~'~ n~J/'~~L~ ~1 ~ &:1:5~1fi;~!
Dr< 2.SLf .. \)
I ,:'~ - -j
o c:~~;..,.I(r'tf')H ~
Y"'..Do n ~
ISZf
15"IJ
UJ1
It t-\\ST
'Sf6
ISId).
I' JJ..:l
l}.~
: t
I.$UIf
'.P -,
, rl
J
- _ 1Ir- ..1.1'&.....
~ : f ~n m;q1 ~r' 1~~[1