SR-402-002 (21)
~
It
L/ tJ -Z "-OI1/Z
e
C/ED: PJS: ffi.1: nh
Councll Mtg.: December 11, 1984
Santa Monlca, Callfornla
TO:
Mayor and Clty Councll
12 - A
DEe 11 111I
FROM: Clty Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Plannlng Commlsslon Actlon DenYlng Develop-
ment ReVlew 254 and Zonlng Adminlstrator Case 4758-Y
for an Elght Unlt Apartment BUlldlng at 1535 18th
Street.
INTRODUCTION
ThlS lS an appeal from a determlnatlon of the Plannlng Commlsslon
on September 10, 1984, to deny an appllcatlon by Mr. Yousef
Yousefzadeh for a Development Revlew Perrrit and a Variance of
Denslty for an elght unlt apartment bUl1dlng at 1535 18th Street
In the R2 Dlstrlct.
The appeal lS by the contractor for the
property owner.
ProJect detalls are presented In the attached
Plannlng Corr~lsslon staff report.
Staff recommends that the ap-
peal be denied and the deClSlon of the Plannlng COmID1SSlOn
afflrmed.
BACKGROUND
The subJect proJect conslsts of a proposed elght unlt, two story
apartment bUlldlng contalnlng four one-bedroom and four two-
bedroom unlts.
Santa Monlea Munlclpal Code Sectlon 910BB.3
Ilmlts the maXlmum number of resldentlal unlts permltted on the
vacant 50' x 150' R2 Dlstrlct slte to SlX unlts.
Under lnterlm
development standards contalned 10 Resolutlon 6385 (CCS), in ef-
feet prlor to adoptlon of the new Land Use Element on October 23,
1984, the maXlwum nurober of unlts was Ilmlted to flve.
The adop-
ted Land Use Element IPalntalns the the same reSldentlal density
- 1 -
Jl-A
DEe 11 '*
e
e
standards conta~ned in Resolutlon 6385.
Under Program 12 of the
Hous~ng Element at least 25% of all unlts must be affordable to
low and moderate lncorne lndl vlduals and famllles.
Assuffilng a
standard flve unlt proJect on an R2 lot, the maXlmum number of
unl ts perml t ted by the Land Use Element together with the State
mandated denSlty bonus for affordable houslng would be SlX unlts.
Thus, the prOJect appllcatlon lncluded a variance request to ex-
ceed by two the maximum number of unlts perwltted In the
Munlc~pal Code as well as a Development ReVlew request to exceed
by three the number of unlts permltted by Resolutlon 6385.
Staff recommended that the Plannlng COITIITI1SS10n 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 COITIITIlssion
voted unanimously to deny the proJect based on the followlng SlX
speclflc flndlngs contalned ln the attached Statement of OfflClal
Act~on.
Development Revlew Flndlnss.
1. The development is not conSlstent Wl th the flndlngs and
purpose of Ordlnance 1251 as set forth below.
2. The prcposed plans do not comply w~th eXlstlng regulatlons
contalned In the Mun~clpal Code In that the proJect con-
talns two more reSldentlal unlts than the maXlffium permlt-
ted per Sec. 9108B.3 (SMMC).
3. The proposed development wlll preJudlce the ab~llty of the
City to adopt a revised land use element In that the proJ-
ect contalns three more reSldentlal unlts than the maXlmum
permltted per Resolutlon 6385 and the Flnal Draft Land Use
Element as approved by the Plannlng Cowwlssion.
- 2 -
e
e
Var~ance F~nd~n9s.
1. The str~ct appl~catlon of the prov1s~ons of the Zoning
Ord1nance would not result in pract~cal d1ff~cul tles or
unnecessary hardsh~ps inconslstent Wl th the general pur-
pose and intent of the Zoning Ordlnance (Artlcle IX, SMMC)
1n that there lS no reason the subJect s~te could not be
developed 10 a manner cons~stent W1 th R2 D1strlct
standards.
2. There are no exceptlonal C1rcumstances or cond1 t10ns ap-
pl1cable to the property 1nvolved and to the 1ntended use
and development of the property that do not apply general-
ly to other property 1n the same zone or nelghborhood 1n
that the slte 1S a typ1cal, standard-slzed R2 lot.
3. The grant1ng of a varlance would be mater1ally detr1mental
to the publ1C welfare or ~nJur~ous to the property or lm-
provements In such zone or nelghborhood ln Wh1Ch the prop-
erty 1S located 1n that the resultlng number of unlts
would exceed the number of unlts 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 appllcant refers
to a S1x-un1t condomlnlum proJect WhlCh received tentatlve map
approval by the Plann1ng CommlSSlon on November 3, 1980 (TT
40971) .
A flnal map was never processed or recorded, and the
tentatlve map has expired.
The appl~cant states that a s~x unlt
condom~niuJ11 proJect 15 "not Just1fled" and that 1t lS not
economlcally feaSlble to construct a SlX unlt apartment bUlldlng.
Staff belleves that th~s h1story lS not relevant to a rev~ew of
the presently proposed proJect and should not have a bear~ng on
any determlnat~on.
The Sl te ~s an unemcuPlbered, vacant, and
typlcal R2 Dlstrlct lot and should be subJect to the same
developMent standards applled generally to other propertles 1n
the same zon1ng dlstrlct.
- 3 -
e
e
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recornmendatlon presented In thlS report does not have a
flnanclal or budget lmpact.
ALTERNATIVES
The Clty Councll may afflrm or reverse the determlnatlon of the
Plannlng Commlsslon.
An actlon to reverse the determlnatlon of
the Plannlng COIrUnlSSlon would requlre approval of approprlate
flndlngs and certaln requlred condlt1ons of approval.
RECOMMFNDATION
It 15 respectfully recommended that the appeal be denied and the
determlnatlon of the Planning CommlSSlon be afflrmed on the ba51s
that the Plannlng COInl1l1SS10n acted properly and reasonably In
maklng ltS determlnatlon.
Prepared by: Rlchard Mll1s, Asslstant Planner
Plannlng and Zonlng Dlvlsion
Comrnunlty and Economlc Developwent Department
Attachments:
1. Letter of appeal dated September 27, 1984
2. Plannlng CommlSSlon Statement of Official
Actlon dated September 17, 1984
3. Staff Report dated September 10, 1984
eC8
I
- 4 -
t'
~.
RAD CO~ST. CO. INC.
11520 SA..'>; VICE~TI BLVD
SUITE 209
LOS A,'>;GELES. CAUFORc'\IA 9-J049
(213) 207 -8888
1! 75.co P~fJ c;j28fbtJ
R~"c:
SeDt. 27, 1984
Nr. PAUL SILVERN
Ref: D.R. 254
and Z.A. 4758-Y
Director of Planning Department
City of Santa Mon~ca
Dear Sir,
We wlsh to appeal the dec~slon ~ade by Plancing CODo~ssion on
septenber 10, 1984, ~egardlng o~r request fo~ 8 ~~lts a~lartment for
the property at 1535 18th St. t Santa gonica.
~e strongly feel that lS totally handshlp for the owners to keep an
undeveloped lot for over 4 years.
At the present condltion, It lS not Justi~led to build a 6 unlts co~io-
TI~r.~um as was granted w~th tract waD )0.40971; and econowlcally lS not
feaslble the construction of the 6 UllltS aPJart~ent.
Sir.cerely yours,
~'l l -~ ,L ;t~/e/v-~~
Darlcush RahlTIlan
e
e
r
r
t
STXI'E:1E>;T OF OE'?ICI:-':c.. ]:CTIO'l
P~C":;EC~.
~C1SER:
~R 154. z; 4758-Y
LOCATlm;-
1535 18th SO::reet. S2
APP~ICh~7: Yousef YousE'~zader
R3Q~EST: E~ght r;n~t Apart~e~t Bu~1d~ng
PL.;;'N~.ID;G CO:~1::SSIC!1 AC':'IOK.
9/1njB4
DA7E
Aonrcved ~asec o~ the f0110N~~g =lr.d~ngs a~d
s~bJect to t~e conc~~~c~s below
X Der:~ed
Other
Deve10fMe~t Rev~ew F~nd~n~s.
1. The deve10pne:lt ~s no~ cons ~stent w~ tl' the f.::.rclngs apd
purpose of Ore1nance 1251 as set forth below.
2. The proposed pIal's do not corrply w~~h eYlst~ng reg~lat~o~s
con~alnee ln t~e ~urlclpal Cede 1~ that the proJect con-
ta1rs two MorE reslient1al unlts than tre ~aXl.un per71t-
tee per Sec. 91C8B.3 (S~~C)
3. The proposed develop~ent wl11 pre~~dlce the abl11ty of the
Clty to adopt a reVlsee :and use ele~ert In that tre proJ-
ect co~ta~ps th=ee rrore resldent~al ~nl~S than ~re naXln~~
perTltted per Resolutlon 6385 and the Fl~al Draft Land Use
Elerent as approved by the ?lannl~g Cor~lsSlon.
Varlance Fl~d~nqs
1
The strlCt. appl1catlon of t~~e provls1ons of t~e Zenlng
Ordll"'anCe would not result ln prac,-~cal c.1L:~c<.l1~leS or
unnecessary hardshlps lnce~slstept wl~h the gerera~ pur-
pose and J.rl.tent of tl-J.e Zorarg O~dJ.ral'ce (;'\,rtlcle IX, s~'r;C)
1n that there lS no reason t.he subJect slte cou~d pet be
developed In a rran~er conS1Step~ Wlth R2 D~strlct
standards,
- 2,
There are no exceptlonal ClrC~lI'star.ces or CCnal t~ens ap-
pl1cable to the property Lnvolved ana to the lntended use
and developmert of the property that do not apply ser.eral-
ly to ether property 1:1 ,the saTe zone or nelg~bcr~cod 1n
that the Slte lS a tYPlcal. standard-slzed R2 lot.
3,
The grant~rg of a varlance would be r-aterJ.aily de,-rlMen~al
to the Fubl~c wel~are cr ~nJ~r1~us to the prcper~y or ~n-
prove~ents ~n such zone or nelgrbor~ood ~:1 wh1ch t~e prDp-
erty lS located 1n tha~ tt.e resultlhS' nur.::::er of U~l::S
would exceed the nUMber of unlts on any ot'1er lot on t'le
sa,.,e block arc be More than double t''1e averaS'e of 3.4
unlts per lot on the same block.
~:,~~/~c:rs~~~
k.TI~Gt - '\
~
'\.
~
~
7A
PLANNING MJD ZONING DIVISION
Commun~ty and Econom~c Development Depart~ent
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE:
September 10, 1984
TO:
The Honorable Planning Cow~iss~on
FROM:
Paul S~lvern, Plann~ng D~rector
SUBJECT: DR 254, Z.A. 4758-Y, 1535 18th Street, R2, E~ght Un~t
Apartment Bu~ld~ng, Yousef Yousefzadeh.
SUIT~ary. Th~s is an appllcat~cn for a development reVlew permlt
and a denslty varlance to construct an e~ght un~t apartment
bu~ld~ng on a vacant R2 lot. Appl~cat~on is by Yousef Yousef-
zadeh for RAD Constructlon Company. Staff recommendat~on ~s for
denla 1 .
Ex~st~ng Cond~t~ons. The s~te is a vacant 50' x ISO' R2 lot lo-
cated on the east s~de of 18th Street between 11ght lndustrlal
uses along Colorado Avenue to the south and commerc~al develop-
ment along Broadway to the north. One-story cottages and apart-
ments predominate along the res~dentlal portlon of 18th Street,
although there are also some two-story res~dentlal bu~ld~ngs on
the block. Immed~ately to the south of the slte ~s a four unlt,
one-story cottage apartment. A one-story slngle fam~ly dwelllng
Slts to the north. F1ve small one-story dwell~ngs are located
d~rectly across the alley to the east, whlle one-s~ory dwell~ngs
are across the street to the west. There 1S a narrow, abandoned
curb cut and dr~veway at the south end of the 18th Street
frontage. All on-street parklng spaces were occupled on the
weekday afternoon of the staff slte V1Slt.
Proposed ProJect. ThlS e~ght unl t, two-story apartment proJ ect
cons~sts of four 646 sq. ft. one-bedroom unlts and four 832 sq. ft.
two-becroom un~ts. 11 total park~ng spaces are provlded, six ~n
a seml-subterranean garage accessed from 18th Street and f1ve at
grade 1n the rear, accessed from the alley. The un~ ts would
front on an 11' wlde sldeyard on the south, wh~ch would serve as
a buffer to the adJacent cottage apartments. An 8' s~deyard
would be prov1ded on the north.
Munic~pal Code, Inter ~m Development I and General Plan Confor-
mance. The proJect meets Code and Interlffi property developgent
standards except for the number of unlts proposed. Sec. 9108B.3
(Sm;lC) I1ffilts the slte to no rrore than SlX unlts (based on one
unlt per 1,250 sq.ft. of lot area). Resolutlon 6385 and the
Flnal Draft Land Use Element perm~t no wore than five unlts (or
- 1 -
~
t'
l'
sJ..X unJ..ts for projects provldlng one lncluslonary unlt per Pro-
gram 12 of the Houslng Element and emploYlng a denslty bonus al-
locatlon). The following chart sumnarlzes Code, Interlm and
ProJect specifJ..catlons:
Code
Draft L.U.E.!6385
ProJect
Unl ts (max.)
6
5
8
Helght (max.)
2 storles/
30'
2 storles/
25'6"
Lot Coverage (max.)
60%
50%
41%
Front Yard (mln.)
20'
20'
Slde Yards (mln.)
7'
8' and II'
Rear Yard (mln.)
IS'
22'
Parklng Spaces
(mln.)
10
11
Per Sec. 9129F.IA, parklng requlrements for apart~ents are based
on the square footage of the unlts. The small Slze of the pro-
posed unlts results in a reduced number of requlred parking
spaces. The Park1ng and Trafflc Eng1neer has requested that the
subterranean garage layout be revlsed to perm1t eaS1er clrcula-
t10n. Th1S can be accompllshed wlthout affectlng the exterlor of
the bu~ldlng. Flnal plans wlll requlre the approval of the Park-
ing and Trafflc Englneer.
CEQA Status. Categorlcally Exempt, Clas s 3 (14) , Santa Monlca
GUldellnes for Implementatlon.
AnalYSls. Residentlal dens1ty 15 the maJor lssue ralsed by this
proposal. The proJect exceeds Code standards for maXlrnum number
of unlts by 33% and Interlrn standards by 60%.
Whlle the Plannlng Commlsslon approved an elght unl t apartment
bUl1ding on an R2 lot In December, 1983 (DR 197, 1934 18th
Street), the two proJects are dlstlnct in that the earller case
involved a long h1story of hardshlp clalms. The present proposal
1S a new applicat10n for development of a typlcal R2 lot. There
is no unlque Clrcumstance or hardshlp to warrant lssuance of a
varlance to exceed the allowable number of unl ts. (The app 11-
cants were informed of the C1ty's denslty standards well ln ad-
vance of formal submlttal. Nevertheless, they requested that the
matter be submltted for CommlSSlon revlew.)
For the proposed elght unlt bUlldlng, Program 12 of the Houslng
Element would requlre two lncluslonary un1 ts. Slnce the elght
unl ts exceeds allowable densl ty, no addl tlona1 densl ty bonus 1S
mandated by state law.
- 2 -
~
~
Arch1 tectural des1gn of the bU11d1ng would need careful reV1ew
and reV1S10n as part of an Arch1tectural ReV1ew Board reV1ew 1n
order to improve upon the present bas1c boxl1ke appearance and
make the des19n more compat1ble w1th the ad]Oln1ng res1dences.
It also should be noted that park1ng would be accessed from both
the alley and the street, and would neceSS1 tate a w1der, relo-
cated driveway and curb cut on 18th Street.
Recommendatlon.
ded that DR 254
f1nd1ngs:
Based on the above, 1t is respectfully recommen-
and Z.A. 4758-Y be den1ed w1th the follow1ng
Development Rev1ew F1ndings.
I. The development 1S not consistent with the f1nd1ngs and
purpose of Qrdlnance 1251 as set forth below.
2. The proposed plans do not comply w1th eXlstlng regulat10ns
conta1ned 1n the Mun1c1pal Code 1n that the proJect con-
ta1ns two more res1dentlal unlts than the BaXlmum permlt-
ted per Sec. 9108B.3 (SMMC).
3. The proposed developr.ent w1ll pre]UdlCe the abl11ty of the
Clty to adopt a revlsed land use element 1n that the proJ-
ect contalns three more resldent1al unlts than the maX1mUM
permltted per Resolutlon 6385 and the Flnal Draft Land Use
Element as approved by the Plann1ng Comm1SSlon.
Var1ance F1nd1ngs.
1. The str1ct appl1cat1on of the prov1s1ons of the Zonlng
Ord1nance would not result 1n pract1cal d1fficul t1es or
unnecessary hardshlps 1nCons 1stent \'/1 th the general pur-
pose and 1ntent of the Zon1ng Ordlnance (Article IX, SMMC)
in that there 1S no reason the SUbJect s1te could not be
developed 1n a manner cons1stent w1th R2 Dlstr1ct
standards.
2. There are no except10nal C1rcumstances or condl t10ns 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 ln
that the Slte lS a tYP1cal, standard-Slzed R2 lot.
3. The grant1ng of a varlance would be materlally detrlmental
to the publ1C welfare or 1n]Ur10US to the property or im-
provewents In such zone or ne1ghborhood 1n WhlCh the prop-
erty lS located 1n that the resul tlng number of unl ts
would exceed the number of un1ts on any o~her lot on the
same block and be more than double the average of 3.4
unlts per lot on the same block.
Prepared by: R1chard M1lls
Asslstant Planner
- 3 -
. . ,
I ·
I '
~ '... }I
\ ~ \" n__~~-
~. '<II
'0'
"'~" -
,
It
\,
l:
"
.
.
~
IJ~ .. 'TO
:sr~c YARD
,.
l44i J ,.,)
~
(t
$\
19
ISJI
.Joe
~-.)
If~/1
~JL f.
-- - I
i_
1111 (52
, M'
/ft1 T 1511-IJ
\ /J ~ c:::::~
o --2l \ .
I.W '51. /.518-ZO
1....7 ~"rJ ~~1
'~"~ ~ I I
~''''.<.i~ vJ _ --~ . ~'S~
hu, .r ~ I .
,a---- ~J ~ J)
'J G ..~., ~ ~ ~
:..:...... I tr -,- ~ ~N4LL. ~7hl
~ V. ,. ..:'1. ""i
_.... _ ..1Ir'+_____ ~
. ..
;(' ~ .J Ii A 1
~ I: ~-.I"l c
~ i", I 16
~ ~
f", JSO.J 1RJ7
@'
., /I.
16
,qr
N'
~.
'8
~
I. .
~.4 "J
I$t<l
1.YtJ IS H'h
11M
/.5"
ff~1 -..on..
SITE
IS"""
~ p~~
-.
J'
't' ... '.
~/f/III'<<U
_IlL
J~;1)r
~1:
f'~J~r... .... :I'
~'4 ..
. I~r 1~ 1
( ," ~...
~M I-DY
..
~ @r
o
(),
a
0J.
o
.....l
()
Dr< ZSLf 'Jl
· .~- --~1
;I'IN~C, . fEHrttr) ~
~-.s J'~ .
,,"'.... n ~
6-AP'13.
QrJ.
r~:l
v'A.
. 1,#"
15"
IS~' 6Zf
IS.!I
/J".# 7
ISI7
I'l- t-nST
/ ,,-""
1516
~EJ~ .fa .~
~~
I
"
'SJ4
ISA6,
!1 ~
J
-....- ..!. ...........
~ : ~ ~n r:'1rl1
I~
0'
~
r, 1~~[1 C
it.
I
,.d ~
(~l ~
t' ..
t (, "
... ~
.1 ..
~Ll:'
1 !
S""'Nr" MOIWC,A, CAL N I
.... Ab~'/f(p,
- ~ "'~---r
8' I
~N8b'.
(J#.
.
I ,
.i ~
tJ'WP t
'('....f;:"J __ .
"" JII.
I ON ~
...~ .
,"-
~ "'II
l ~, I~
.. Q .""
.. ~I, I~
I Il~..
.. ~"l:
~ . ~ '
I ~ ~..., "w
~~~
,..,
" @
-
t
Sl'-SI /rF'
of- . ~ I
,,~ If' .~ I
,i! 2
-". ~
I I"
u. ~ I
~, ~ I
~ ~Qg'=.,
I
I
/
jI1#"#C'N
~NOP
j
1:1 ...
~
e