SR-402-002 (27)
..
5-A
MAy 2 4 1988
'I~?'aFZ-
CjED:SF:Dez
council Mtg: May 10, 1988
Santa Monica,
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning commission Denial of Development
Review Permit 407, Located at 1826 14th street.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City council uphold the Planning
commission's denial of Development Review Permit 407, 1826 14th
Street.
The application is a request to convert eight
residential units into commercial offices.
The applicant is
Dorothy Burreson represented by the appellant Christopher
Harding.
BACKGROUND
At the time the applicant purchased the property in 1956 there
were a total of eight residential units on site. There are six
units in the structure located in the front of the lot (1-6), and
there are two units located in the structure at the rear of the
lot (7-8). Units 7 and 8 have been used by the applicant for
commercial purposes for over 20 years, and the remaining units
were used for residential use. On May 10, 1984 the Rent Board
issued a non-residential rental exemption for units 2, 3, 4, 7
units 1, 5 and 6.
and 8, and a letter of exemption for purposes of removal for
5-A
MAY 2 4 1988
- 1 -
'-
1 0 1988
AY 1 7 1988
Administrative Approval
The applicant submitted to the Planning Division an
Administrative Approval Application to convert the residential
units into commercial use. On July 20, 1987 Planning staff denied
the Administrative Approval based on the fact that the request
was not in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and the Housing
Element of the General Plan. The project as submitted did not
provide adequate parking for commercial uses. The site currently
has seven parking spaces, however, the conversion of residential
to commercial use would require a total of twelve spaces to be
provided on site.
The project, as submitted, is also inconsistent with Program 10
of the Housing Element which states: "Demolition of existing
multi-family residential dwelling units shall not be authorized
unless provision has been made for replacement of those units."
The applicant has made no provisions for replacement of the units
in question and claims that they have no obligation to provide
such units. As a result of these inconsistencies, Planning staff
could not approve the application administratively.
Development Review
In the case where an Administrative Approval Application is
denied by Staff, the appl icant may appeal the denial to the
Planning Commission. The applicant filed for Planning commission
review and on February 3, 1988 the Planning Commission conducted
a public hearing on the matter. After considerable discussion on
- 2 -
the matter, the application to convert the residential units to
commercial use was deemed denied due to a lack of four votes for
either approval or denial. The Commission debated the
interpretation of the word "demolition" used in the context of
Program 10. The Planning commission was asked to determine if
the word "demolition" applied to the conversion of mUlti-family
residential units into commercial uses, thereby requiring
replacement under Program 10 of the Housing Element. At that
meeting the Planning Commission requested staff to agendize
discussion of Program 10 at the February 14 commission meeting.
On February 14, 1988 the Planning commission adopted guidelines
for implementing Program 10 of the Housing Element. The
guidelines state "The replacement requirements of Program 10
shall apply to all owners/developers of mUlti-family residential
dwelling units regardless of the unit tenure who are proposing to
remove through demolition or conversion multi-family residential
units in the City of Santa Monica." Under the provisions of
these guidelines, conversion of mUlti-family units into
commercial use would not be permitted unless the applicant has
provided residential replacement units. In the case of the
application at 1826 14th street, no replacement units are
proposed.
Variance Request
On February 18, 1988 the applicant filed a variance
seven parking spaces in-lieu of the twelve required.
Administrator failed to act on the application
to permit
The Zoning
within the
- 3 -
specified time period outlined in the Municipal Code. The
appellant is maintaining that the variance is deemed approved
under the provisions of the Permit streamlining Act. The city
Attorney has advised that the variance application is deemed
dismissed and therefore cannot have been approved since the
Zoning Administrator failed to act on the application and the
applicant did not appeal the matter to the Planning commission.
The Municipal Code states II An application shall be dismissed
without further action in the event of the failure of the
Administrator to act and when no appeal or request for review is
filed within the time allowed.1I The variance application was not
a part of the Planning Commission hearing and is not before the
Council as part of this appeal.
Analysis
The appellant maintains that the word IIdemolitionU as stated in
Program 10 does not apply to conversion of mUlti-family units
into commercial use. Furthermore the appellant states that
denial of the application due to Program 10 requirements would
consti tute illegal spot zoning of the property. The appellant
states that Program 10, if applied to the property, would impose
severe restrictions on the property that are not generally
applicable to other properties in this zoning district.
The objective of Program 10 as stated in the Housing Element is
to preserve the existing housing stock of over 46,000 units
within the City. Whether removal of existing units occurs
through demolition or conversion, housing is eliminated from the
- 4 -
market in ei ther event. Al though the language contained in
Program 10 does not specifically use the term "conversionll, the
intent of the Policy was to maintain the number of units existing
at the time the Housing Element was adopted. To allow removal of
units through conversion, without requiring replacement of those
units, would be in conflict with the objective of Program 10.
The provisions of Program 10 apply to all property currently in
multi-family use regardless of the zoning. This particular
property is not being treated differently than other commercial
properties with existing mUlti-family units. The provisions of
Program 10 do not preclude a change of use or redevelopment of
the site provided any subsequent project complies with applicable
development regulations. In this case, since multi-family
residential units exist on the site, the new development would be
required to provide replacement units in the new project.
Conclusion
The request to convert the eight units from residential use to
commercial use was denied due to a lack of a four vote majority.
Although the decision was left unresolved at the hearing, the
Planning Commission subsequently adopted guidelines for
implementation of Program 10. The Council will shortly be
reviewing those guidelines in ordinance form.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
- 5 -
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the City Council deny the
appeal and adopt the following findings per Ordinance 1321:
1. The physical location and placement of proposed structures
on the site are not compatible with and do not relate har-
moniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods in that
the application converts eight existing residential units
into commercial office space without providing adequate
parking to accommodate the commercial use.
2. The existing and/or proposed rights-of-way and facilities
for both pedestrian and automobile traffic will not be
adequate to accommodate the anticipated results of the
proposed development including off-street parking facili-
ties and access thereto in that public testimony at the
Planning Commission hearing indicated that presently
within the area the project is located there exists a
parking shortage for existing commercial and residential
uses. The conversion of this site into commercial use
would increase the level of parking and traffic activity
generated by the site, thereby adversely impacting exist-
ing and commercial development in the area.
3. The proposed development is not consistent with the
General Plan of the City of Santa Monica and the Zoning
Ordinance in that the project proposes to remove a total
of eight residential units without providing replacement
housing. This request is not in conformance with Program
10 of the Housing Element which is intended to preserve
existing multi-family residential units when such units
are to be converted or demolished. The project does not
provide replacement units as required by Program 10 of the
Housing Element. The proj ect is inconsistent with the
Zoning Ordinance in that only 7 of the 12 required parking
spaces for commercial use are being provided on the site.
Attachments: A. Letter of Appeal from Christopher Harding
B. February 3, 1988 Planning Commission staff
Report
C. February 3, 1988 Planning Commission Minutes
D. February I, 1988 Letter by Christopher Harding
E. Program 10 of the Housing Element
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
- 6 -
EXIf/~rr A
L<\WRENCE & HARDING
A. PROFESSIONAL. CORPOPAr."fION
ATTOR N EYS AT LAW
12!;iO $lXTH ST~EET
CHRISTOPHE:R M HARDI~G
RICHAFilO A l-AWRENCE
KENNETH ;... K:.JTC~ER
MAR'" J BRE:SNIC;<;
JOH'\I E. MACKEL m
KE;Vt'" V KOZAL
SW-TE: 300
SANTA MONICA~ CALI"O~NIA 90.4Qi
TE:LE:PHONE 12131 393-1007
TE:_E:COPIE:R 12131 "'58-'959
February 4, 1988
VIA MESSENGER EXPRESS
=====================
Mr. Paul Berlant
Director of Planning
Planning Commission
city of Santa Monica
1685 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90401-3295
Re: Development Review Application (DR 407)
1826-14th street
Our File No. 187.1
Dear Mr. Berlant:
This office represents Dorothy Burreson, the owner of
the property located at 1826-14th street, Santa Monica. By this
letter, Mrs. Burreson hereby appeals the February 3, 1988
decision of the Planning Commission denying Development Review
Application DR 407.
Enclosed please find a check made payable to the City
of Santa Monica in the amount of $75.00 for the appeal fee. We
hereby request that a public hearing by the City Council be set
for this appeal at the earliest convenient date.
sincerely,
c~~'
p4hn E. Mackel
~r LAWRENCE & HARDING,
a Professional corporation
JEM:pp:BURRES9
Enclosure
cc: SJ,J".DGe -~~
Laurie Lieberman
Dorothy Burreson
Ginette Mizraki
EYKllOlT B
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Community and Economic Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 3, 1988
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: DR 407, ZA 5l62-Y
Address: 1826 14th street
Applicant: David Horn/Steve Ksieski
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subj ect property is a 7,500 sq. ft. parcel located on the
wests ide of 14th Street between Michigan and Olympic Boulevard
having a frontage of 50 feet. The parcel is currently occupied
by an eight unit apartment building no longer in residential use
with the exception of one owner-occupied unit. surrounding land
uses consist of a two story commercial use (C4A) to the north, a
one story commercial use (C4A) to the south, the city Cemetery
(C4A) to the east, and mUlti-family residential (R2) to the west.
Zoning Districts: C4A
Land Use Districts: Highway Commercial
Parcel Area: 50' x 150', 5,000 square feet
PROPOSED PROJECT
The application is to convert the eight apartment units into com-
mercial units. No interior remodeling will be a part of the
project until such time as tenants are selected. One parking
space will be provided for each office unit.
A total of seven parking spaces currently exist on the site. The
conversion to office use will require the addition of five addi-
tional spaces for a total of twelve. The applicant is requesting
a parking variance to permit only seven spaces to be provided for
this project.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed project is inconsistent with the Municipal Code with
respect to parking. The existing building conforms to all other
municipal code standards pertaining to setbacks and height.
- 1 -
The planning commission must make the finding that this project
is in conformity with the General Plan, specifically, program 10
of the Housing Element. Program 10 states that "Demolition of
existing multi-family residential units shall not be authorized
unless a provision has been made for replacement of those units. It
Al though the application is not for the demolition of existing
units, it will result in the removal of seven multi-family units.
Before this application can be approved, the Planning Commission
must make the determination that the project is not in conflict
with program 10 of the Housing Element.
CEQA STATUS
The project is categorically exempt from CEQA, Class 1(1).
FEES
The project is not subject to any Planning fees.
ANALYSIS
Background
On May 10, 1984 the Rent Control Board issued a non-residential
rental exemption for four of the seven units on site and a letter
of exemption for purposes of removal pursuant to Regulation 5017
for the three remaining units. The Rent Control Board issued the
exemption on the basis that the units were not in residential use
prior to the adoption of Rent Control (see attachment A)
An application to change the use of the building from residential
to commercial was submitted to the planning Department for admin-
istrative approval, and a parking variance application was sub-
mi tted to the Zoning Administrator. Because of the potential
applicability of Program 10 to this application, Planning Staff
was unable to determine consistency with the General Plan as re-
quired in Ordinance 1321. Therefore, the Planning Commission
must determine if the project can be approved.
As stated in the Rent Control determination, and the letter of
exemption dated December 7, 1984 five of the eight units have not
been in residential use since 1977, which was prior to the adop-
tion of the Housing Element, and the remaining three have not
been in residential use since 1984. The Housing Element was adop-
ted in January 1983 and the Rent Control Charter Amendment was
adopted April 10, 1979.
The Planning Commission must make a determination on the c:-p-
plicability of Program 10 to units that are to be converted In-
lieu of being demolished. Should the Commission find that Pro-
gram 10 does not apply, staff recommends that Commission narrowly
define the exemption for this project, to avoid future Program 10
exemptions requested in conjunction with Ellis removals and
conversions.
- 2 -
Staff does not support the variance request in that there are no
exceptional circumstances or physical constraints that would pre-
clude the applicant from reducing the area devoted to commercial
office and devote the area to parking.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a
determination on the applicability of Program 10 of the Housing
Element to this project; and if the Conunission determines that
the proj ect is exempt, direct staff to return on February 17,
1988 with findings and conditions for approval.
Planning staff recommends denial of the proposed parking variance
according to the findings below:
VARIANCE FINDINGS
1. The strict application of the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance would not result in practical difficulties or
unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general pur-
pose and intent of the zoning Ordinance (Article IX, SMMC)
in that the units are presently vacant and the existing
building could be remodeled to accommodate 5 additional
parking spaces as required by the Municipal Code.
2. There are not exceptional circumstances or conditions ap-
plicable to the property involved and to the intended use
and development of the property that do not apply general-
ly to other property in the same zone or neighborhood.
3. The granting of a variance would be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to the property or im-
provements in such zone or neighborhood in which the prop-
erty is located in that the conversion of the residential
units to commercial use would generate additional parking
demand and the on-site parking would not be sufficient to
accommodate the demand.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
SF:nh
PCjDR407
01/27/88
- 3 -
March 21, 1988
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1447-1453 Ocean Avenue Hotel project
Giorgio Dazzan and Associates propose to construct a four story,
30,000 square foot, 65 room hotel consisting of first floor 140
seat restaurant. three upper floors of guest sleeping quarters
and three levels of subterranean garage parking in the City of
Santa Monica (Exhibit A). The building proposed for construction
on the east side of Ocean Avenue, is centrally located in the
Ocean Front North Land Use Element District. The site encompasses
two adjacent parcels of land containing 15,000 square feet of
land and located in the C-3 (General cOmmercial) Zoning District.
An older development motel building and surface level parking lot
existing on the site will be demolished to permit the newer
transitional hotel development. Surrounding land uses and zoning
include a mixture of low scale one and two story public oriented
restaurant and service uses and newer mid-rise office and hotel
development(s) in the C-3 (General Commercial) DIstrict located
to the north, south and east of the site and an open space park
area in the R-4 (Multiple Family District) located to the west.
The proposed 2.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is consistent with FAR
standards established for the Oceanfront Land Use District. The
project site is within walking distance of the Oceanfront and is
subject to review by the California coastal Commission. The
project will require Santa Monica Planning Commission review
pursuant to Ordinance 1321 (CCS) and Ordinance 1319 (CCS),
adopted in 1984. Ordinance 1321 requires Planning Commission
review for all new commercial development(s) that contain a
minimum of 15,000 square feet of floor area and Ordinance 1319
requires Planning Commission review for a restaurant serving
alcoholic beverages having a seating capacity in excess of 50
seats.
hpdaz1
WW:ww
03/21/88
- 1 -
E.X~/DITG
Hugh Gottfried, owner of a lot adjacent to the proposed
site, was present to express his concern over having a
residential project introduced into a C-4 area.
commissioner Nelson moved to support the staff report.
The motion was seconded and approved with the fallowing
vote: AYES: Hecht, Mechur, Nelson, pyne;
NOES: Perlman; ABSTAIN: Lambert; ABSENT: Farivar.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. DR 412, EIA 834, 730 Arizona, C4, To convert the fourth
floor of a previously approved mixed use commercial!
residential project from apartments into office space.
The building envelope and design remain unchanged.
Development Review is required when a significant change
to an approved proj ect is made. Following the staff
report, questions were asked of staff.
The architect, Vito Cetta, was present to answer ques-
tions of the Commission.
Jack Baptista, 1221 9th street, ap't D, Santa Monica,
spoke against the project.
commissioner Perlman suggested a condition of approval
to prohibit medical offices in proposed project.
commissioner Mechur moved to approve the staff report
recommendation. Commissioner Perlman recommended an
amendment to the motion, to add an alteration to spe-
cial condition #3, page 4 of the staff report that "sig-
nage shall be prominently displayed and subject to ap-
proval by ARB. Alterations to this agreement shall re-
turn to the Commission for approval. Chair Hecht ex-
pressed concerns over the scope of the project, specifi-
cally the height, size and type of building use. The
motion as amended was moved, seconded and passed by all
members of the Commission who were present.
G
DR 407, 1826 14th street, C4, To permit the change of
use from residential units to office suites in an exist-
ing 3,170 square foot building. A development review
permit is required to convert from residential use to
commercial use.
Following the staff report, questions were asked of
staff.
Commissioner Perlman stated she would be abstaining from
this issue.
The attorney, Chris Harding, spoke to the Commission
regarding the project.
The following members of the public were present to
speak against the project:
- 2 -
Robert Brahms, 1840 14th street, Santa Monica
Richard Boyd, 1819 Euclid, Ap't C, Santa Monica
Deputy City Attorney Lieberman clarified the variance
and explained the history of the case. No variance ap-
plication was being considered or presented at this
meeting. A discussion of Program 10 followed. Commis-
sioner Lambert asked for the definitions of "demolition"
versus "removal". Chair Hecht inquired of counsel the
history of demolition in Santa Monica. Commissioner
Nelson raised concerns over how the Ellis Act would ap-
ply to this case and the implications of demolition. A
motion was made for the interpretation of the word Ilde-
molitionn to include the change of use as having ap-
plicability under Program 10. The motion was seconded
and the following vote was recorded: AYES: Lambert,
Mechur, Nelson; NOES: Hecht, Perlman; ABSTAIN: Perl-
man; ABSENT: Farivar.
Chair Hecht questioned if a four vote majority was re-
quired. All members of the Commission present agreed to
continue with item 7-C until the City Attorney clarified
the voting issue.
Following action upon item 7-C, the Commission resumed
discussion on item 7-B. Counsel ruled that according
to the by-laws of the Planning Commission, the vote
failed to pass. The rules state any action granting
approval of any substantive matter requires 4 votes or
it is automatically denied.
Commissioner Nelson moved to deny the proj ect on the
basis of program 10. The motion was seconded with the
following vote: AYES: Hecht, Lambert, Mechur, Nelson,
pyne; NOES: None; ABSTAIN: Perlman; ABSENT:
Farivar.
Commissioner Nelson asked to agendize the item for fur-
ther discussion.
After some discussion, Commissioner pyne and Chair Hecht
requested the record show that they had voted opposite
to what they had indicated. The corrected vote is 3-2
in favor of the motion to deny.
C. CUP 499, TPM 19288, 817 17th street, R2, To construct a
four unit, two story residential condominium building.
Eight parking spaces would be provided in a subterranean
garage accessed from 17th street. An existing single
family dwelling would be removed.
Following the staff report, Commissioner Perlman in-
quired about access to the property via the street ver-
sus the alley. Chair Hecht raised concerns about the
location of the Montana Avenue Branch Library and its
volume of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
- 3 -
tYfffilT D
,w't O.h ' "., \ n ~ l-\ D ~H'~ -~
LA'fREN\.ffl'iil1tRDING -
JI> ~RDFE5.SI0"""'l.. eORPO~ATlON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHRISTOP....ER... H....ROI...G
R.C....A~O A ~AW~ENCE
KCNI.IE:rH L KUTCHER'
M....RA J ElRlS N IC~
,)0""'.... E MA.C rC.E'- DI
K.E.VIIo.,I V KO::t:AI.
, .
125C SIXT.... STREET
SUITE 300
February 1, 1988
SANTA IIoI-C'\IJCA, CAL1rOR1'.JA .9040.
1"L.EP.,O" E '2131 39.3- 007
iE'_ECOPIER '213: 458-i959
VIA MESSENGER EXPRESS
---------------------
---------------------
Planning commission
City of Santa Monica
16B5 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: 1826-14th street
Development Review Application, DR 407
Parking Variance Application, ZA 5162-Y
Our File No. 187.1
Dear Commissioners:
This office represents Dorothy Burreson, the owner of
the property located at 1826-14th street, Santa Monica. At your
February 3, 1988 meeting, you will be considering a development
review application (DR 407) and a parking variance application
(ZA 5l62-Y) affecting this property. The proposed project
affecting this property involves conversion of the existing
building to commercial use. The proposed project does not
contemplate demolishing any portion of the structure.
A development permit from the Planning Commission would
not be required for this project except that Staff has deter-
mined the project may be subject to Program 10 of the Housing
Element. Santa Monica Ordinance No. 1321 (CCS), which defines
the projects requiring a development permit from the planning
Commission, specifically states that it does not apply to
applications for changes of use provided the change of use is
consistent with the City's General Plan. (Section 2(d)). Mrs.
Burreson contends that because Program 10, by its own terms,
only applies to demolitions and not changes of use, the Planning
commission is legally required to approve the development review
application or, in the alternative, to find that it does not
have jurisdiction over this matter and instruct staff to grant
this project an administrative approval.
This letter will not argue the merits of the parking
variance application because it has been deemed approved pursu-
ant to the Permit streamlining Act and, therefore, the Planning
commission now has no jurisdiction to consider the application.
This should be confirmed by the Commission during the pUblic
hearing.
LA'fRE~CE & HARDI~G
A PRQF'ESS10t.lA.L. CORPORATION
....TTORNEYS A.T I..AW
Planning Commission
February 1, 1988
Page 2
FACTS
Dorothy Burreson has owned this property since 1956.
The property is improved with seven units. Mrs. Burreson and
her husband have lived in one of the units since 1957. Of the
remaining units, only three have been used for residential
rental purposes in the last nine years. None of the units have
been used for residential rental purposes since 1984, when the
last of the tenants vacated. In 1984, the property was granted
letters of exemption by the Santa Monica Rent Control Board for
all seven units.
Mrs. Burreson and her husband have operated a welding
business for many years in the city of santa Monica. They have
recently decided to retire. However, she and the prospective
purchasers of her property have now been confronted with the
additional and unexpected requirements of Program 10.
Mrs. Burreson and the prospective purchasers have
suffered long and unnecessary delays in the processing of their
applications. On February 18, 1987, the prospective purchasers
filed an application for a parking variance for the property.
They had previously opened an escrow to purchase the property
from Mrs. Burreson on February 13, 1987. The closing date for
the purchase and sale transaction was originally scheduled for
May 14, 1981.
On March 5, 1987, the Planning Division sent the
applicants a letter indicating the parking variance application
was rejected for filing because certain additional items were
requested and because of purported conflicts with Program 10. A
copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit "A". On April 13,
1987, the purchasers provided the requested information to
complete their application. After they submitted this infor-
mation, Planning Division Staff never sent a letter deeming
their application incomplete. Thus, the variance application
was deemed complete as a matter of law on May 13, 1987.
Pursuant to discussions with the City Attorney, our
firm sent a letter to the City Attorney and Planning Division on
May 28, 1987 confirming an agreement that the Planning Division
would process any and all development applications affecting
this property, including the parking variance application, with-
out prejudice to whether Program 10 of the Housing Element was
LAWREXCE & HARDIKG
,It. ~ROFESSIONAL CORPORA.TION
ATTORN EYS ....T I..AW
Planning commission
February 1, 1988
Page 3
applicable to the property. A copy of this letter is attached
as Exhibit "B".
The prospective purchasers were subsequently informed
that a development review application would be necessary because
of the possible application of Program 10 to the property.
Therefore, they filed a development review application on July
22, 1987. It stated that "[t]he units, as existing, will be
used for individual office suites.u The plans submitted with
this development application had already been approved by the
Parking and Traffic Division on February 17, 1987.
Despite our continual requests to process the appli-
cations, no action was taken with respect to either the parking
variance application or the development review application. In
November 1987, our firm sent a letter to Suzanne Frick of the
Planning Division, again requesting that these applications be
processed and indicating that the parking variance application
had been deemed approved pursuant to the Permit streamlining
Act. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit lie".
DISCUSSION
A. Proqram 10 Does Not ApDlv to This Development Review
Application.
Program 10 does not apply to a change in use of prop-
erty which does not involve a "demolition". Program 10 states:
t'Demolition of existing mUlti-family residential
dwelling units shall not be authorized unless
provision has been made for replacement of those
units." (Emphasis added.)
It is clear that program 10 is intended to apply only to circum-
stances where there will be a "demolitionu. Program 10 (a copy
of which is attached as Exhibit "DIt) uses the term demolition or
a variation thereof four times in its text, which consists of
only five sentences. Nowhere does Program 10 reference the
"removal" or "conversion" of mUlti-family units, terms found in
other City laws including the Rent control Law. Program 10 on
its face only applies to projects inVOlving the "demolition" of
multi-family housing units.
LAWRESCE &: HARDlKG
A PROFESSIONAL CO~POR"TION
ATTORNEY'S ....T i..AW
Planning commission
February 1, 1988
Page 4
The legal rules of statutory construction require that
the term "demolitionll must be construed in accordance with its
common and ordinary meaning. See county of Oranqe v. Flournoy,
42 Cal.App.3d 908, 117 Cal. Rptr. 224 (1974); Prunty v. Bank of
America, 37 Cal.App.3d 430, 112 Cal. Rptr. 370 (1974); Merrill
v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 71 Ca1.2d 907, 458 P.2d 33 (1969);
Behling v. County of Los Anqeles, 139 Cal.App.2d 684, 294 P.2d
534 (1956). In County of Oranqe, supra, 117 Cal. Rptr. at 226,
it was held that ". . . if the words of a statute, when given
their ordinary and popular meaning, are reasonably free of
uncertainty, courts will look no further to ascertain the
statute's meaning. II Also, in Merrill, supra, 80 Cal. Rptr. at
99, the court held that legislative language must be given its
usual, ordinary meaning. Thus, the Planning Commission must
apply the ordinary dictionary meaning of the term "demolition"
in construing Program 10.
standard dictionaries, including Webster's, define
IIdemolish" as "to tear down" or lito raze". The term "demolish"
cannot reasonably be construed to include conversions where the
existing structure is not being "razed" or "torn down". In
short, Program 10 has no application to the project proposed for
Mrs. Burreson's property, which does not involve the demolition
of any multi-family dwelling units.
Moreover, it is our understanding that Program 10 was
intended to preserve controlled rental units that are demolished
notwithstanding the removal permit restrictions of the Rent
Control Law. However, the units on this property are not
controlled rental units. On May 10, 1984, the Rent Control
Board granted a non-residential rental exemption for four of the
units on the property and a letter of exemption pursuant to
RegUlation 5017 was granted for the remaining three units.
Since May 10, 1984, it has been clear that none of the seven
units on the property are controlled rental units. Therefore,
Program 10 should not be applied to this property.
Finally, it is our opinion that Program 10 is merely a
statement of policy. It lacks sufficient guidelines for its
enforceability. Without implementing ordinances or regulations,
it is our opinion that Program 10 is not self-enforcing and
cannot be the basis for a denial of the development permit
application at this time.
LA\\'"REKCE & HARDIKG
~ P~OFE5$IO"""'... CORPORAT10""
ATTOFlNE:YS AT I..AW
Planning Commission
February 1, 1988
Page 5
B. Denial of the Develooment Review Aoo1ication Pursuant
to Proqram 10 Would Constitute an Il1eqal Soot Zoning of the
Property.
If Program 10 is applied to the pending development
application for this property, it would preclude its conversion
from a residential to a commercial use. This would effectively
create an illegal spot zoning of the property since the property
is virtually the only residential use remaining on this segment
of 14th street. The other uses are virtually all commercial
office and retail uses.
If this property is restricted to a residential use
only, notwithstanding the fact that such use is incompatible
with the uses of the surrounding properties and inconsistent
with the General Plan, Zoning Code and proposed zoning Code of
Santa Monica, it will be illegally spot zoned. (See Wilkins v.
City of San Bernardino, 29 Cal.2d 332, 175 P.2d 542 (1946)~
Reynolds v. Barrett, 12 Cal.2d 244, 83 P.2d 29 (1938) ~ visa v.
state of California, 92 Cal.App. 3d 15, 154 Cal. Rptr. 580
(1979).) The spot zoning doctrine generally prohibits cities
from singling out parcels of property in a particular neighbor-
hood or zoning district and imposing greater use restrictions
upon them than the restrictions generally applicable in the
neighborhood or zoning district. Program 10, if applied to Mrs.
Burreson's property, would impose severe (if not prohibitive)
restrictions on her property that are not generally applicable
to other properties in this neighborhood or zoning district.
The doctrine of spot zoning is intended to prohibit this type of
discriminatory treatment.
C. The Parkinq Variance Anplication has Been Deemed
Approved.
Government Code Section 65952 (a prov~s~on of the
Permit Streamlining Act) provides a 180-day time limit for
Planning Commission action on the parking variance application
for this property. The applicants provided the requested
information to complete their variance application on or before
April 13, 1987. The Planning Division did not respond with a
letter indicating the applications were deemed incomplete on or
before May 13, 1987, as contemplated by the Permit streamlining
Act. (See Gov't Code 165943.) Therefore, the application was
LA\fREKCE & HARDI~G
... P5ilOF'ESS.ONAL CORPOR"T10N
ATTORN !:YS AT ,_....W
Planning Commission
February 1, 1988
Page 6
deemed complete on May 13, 1987, and the parking variance appli-
cation was deemed approved when the 180-day time period expired
on November 12, 1987. Because the application has been deemed
approved, the Planning Commission no longer has the power to
deny the parking variance permit.
CONCLUSION
We request that you find that Program 10 does not apply
to this property and, therefore, approve the development review
application or, in the alternative, find that this matter is
exempt from Planning Commission review pursuant to Section 2(d)
of Ordinance No. 1321 (CCS) and direct that it be administra-
tively approved by Staff. with respect to the parking variance
permit, we request the Commission to acknowledge the variance
has been approved by operation of law pursuant to the Permit
Streamlining Act.
Respectfully submitted,
C~~ ""'~~~
Christopher M. Harding
of LAWRENCE & HARDING,
a Professional Corporation
CMH: pp
JEM:BURRES7
cc: Suzanne Frick
Dorothy Burreson
Ginette Mizraki
David Horn
Laurie Lieberman
~XI-nr;J I S
PROGRAM 10:
Demolition of existl.ng roul ti-f ami ly residen tl.al
dwelling units shall not be authorized unless provision has been
made for replacement of those units.
OBJECTIVE: Preserve existing housing stock.
DESCRIPTION: In the past there have been sl.gnif1cant losses to
the housing stock because of demolished multi-family housing
units be1.ng replaced by fewer units or by non-residential uses.
Demoll.t1.on of existing multi-fanuly residential dwelling units
shall not be permitted unless a plan for replacemen t of thoe e
units has been approved.
This requirement shall not apply when
it 1S determined that replacement of all or a por t1.on of the
un1.ts 1.8 not feasible, and the requirement for prior approval of
a replacement plan shall not apply if unmediate demol i tion 1.5
necess1.tated by documented health and safety defects.
IMPLEMENTATION:
Responsible Agency:
Department.
Community and Economic Development
Cost: One-time cost of less than$S00 for ~egal advert1.s1ng.
Staffin9: EXl.sting staff sufficient.
Fundin9: General Fund.
Schedule: III.
Quantified Impact: Thl.s program will ensure a one-for-one
replacemen t of demolished mul ti-fam1ly housing to mal.nta1n
the City's housing stock of over 46,000 un1ts.
71