Loading...
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