SR-11-08-1983-12BC/ED:JL:nh
Council Mtg.: November 8, 1983
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
x~v ~
Santa Monica, California
SUBJECT: Appeal, Tentative Tract No. 37984, Conditional Use Permit
No. 358, Development Review No. 207,.16 Unit. Condominium
Conversion, 631-705 Bay Street, R2, Billie Sorrel.
Introduction
This is an appeal from the Planning Commission's determination denying
a tentative tract map, conditional use permit and interim development
permit for a 16 unit condominium conversion. Appeal is by the applicant.
Background
The applicant owns a 16 unit apartment complex at 631-705 Bay Street
which she wishes to convert to condominiums. In June 1983 the Santa
Monica Rent Control Board granted a removal permit for the units allowing
her to proceed with an application for conversion. Following public
hearing on the request on October 17, 1983, the Planning Commission voted
to-deny the application on the basis of Program 25 of the Housing Element
but added a recommendation that the City Council consider the request on
appeal. Program 25 of the Housing Element adopted in January of 1983
prohibits conversions of market-rate condominiums until the 1,300 rental
units demolished in 1978 and 1979 are replaced.
appealed the Commission's action. In support of
Mrs.. Sorrel offered to provide ornamental street
section of Bay Street.
Alternatives
In the matter of an appeal the City Council may
modify any ruling of the Planning Commission and
The applicant has
her application,
lighting for this
affirm, reverse or
the decision of
the Council shall be final. / .,
W $
Mayor and City Council -2- November 8, 1983
The Subdivision Map Act states that in order to approve a Tentative Map,
the legislative body must find that the map is consistent with the
City's General Plan of which. the adopted Housing Element is a part.
Because this project is in conflict with Program 25 of the Housing
Element, as the Planning Commission found, it is not possible to find
that the Tentative Map is consistent with the General Plan.
In view of the Planning Commission's concern for consideration of
hardship in this case, staff has consulted with the City Attorney to
determine if there is a legal basis for granting the appeal and approving
the tentative map based on a hardship exemption. The City Attorney
advised staff that because the Subdivision Map Act contains no provision
for hardship exemptions, there is no legal basis for the Council to
grant such an exemption and approve a map on that basis.
Recommendation
Because the State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66474)
mandates that-the legislative body shall deny approval of a tentative
map if it makes the finding that the proposed map is not consistent
with applicable General and Specific plans, staff respectfully
recommends that the City Council deny the appeal thereby denying the
tentative map based on the following finding:
1. That Tentative Tract Map No. 37984 is not consistent with
the City's General Plan in that Program 25 of the Housing
Element of the. General Plan clearly prohibits conversions
of market-rate condominiums until the 1300 rental units
demolished in 1978 and 1979 are replaced.
The recommendations presented in this .report do not have a budget/
financial impact.
Prepared by: Mark Tigan, Director Community and Economic Development
~'~~ ~
~, _~-~3
THOMAS R. LARMORE
JOJ WILSH~RE BOULEVARD
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017
November 8, 1983.
BY MESSENGER
Members of Santa Monica City Council
Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
Re: Billie Sorrel
Dear Councilmember:
I am writing this letter in connection
with the appeal of the Planning Commission's rejection,'_i
of the subdivision map requested by Billie Sorrel
for the conversion of the existing apartment building
into condominium units. Having found myself in the
minority on the Planning. Commission, as I often do,
and being in disagreement with the staff report you
have received, I thought it might be helpful to you
for me to set forth the reasons why I favored the
granting of the subdivision map.
The staff report contends that the Cali-
fornia Subdivision Map Act requires a finding of
consistency with a city's general plan and that Program
25 of Santa Monica's Housing Element prevents a finding
of consistency in this case. While I agree with
the first statement, I disagree with the second based
upon a conflict in the Housing Element policies as
applied to this project.
The Housing Element consists of goals,
policies and programs. Certainly, approval of the
subdivision map is not inconsistent with the overall
goal of the Housing Element which is stated as follows:
Assure that Santa Monica meets the
existing and projected housing needs
of all its residents and its regional
responsibilities for decent, afford-
able housing opportunities for all
social groups while maintaining an
economically sound and healthy environment.
Members of Santa Monica City Council
November 8, 1983
Page Two
This goal is further refined by a series
of policies. Program. 25 is found under Policies
I E 1 and I E 2 which are stated on pages 35 and
36 of the Housing Element. These policies provide
that a conversion should be approved only "consistent
with all laws of the City of Santa Monica" and "tenants
are not displaced." In reviewing the proposed conver-
sion, I concluded-that approval of the map would
not be inconsistent with either of these policies.
In addition, Policy II C 1 on page 36 states that
the City should "encourage housing ownership opportuni-
ties for all income groups." Certainly an approval
of this map would provide for homeownership opportuni-
ties for the tenants in the building.
The only basis-which I could find in the
Housing Element among its goals, policies and programs
for disapproving the subdivision map is Program 25
which, if self-executing, would prohibit the conver-
sion. In my view, however, the programs are not
self-executing. A review of the various programs
in the Housing Element shows that virtually all of
them call for the City to develop programs, review
existing ordinances and regulations, encourage certain
activities and study certain other issues. Also,
each program includes a timing schedule within which
the program is to be implemented. (Program 25 is
scheduled to be implemented by the end of January,
1984.) My reading of the programs convinced me that
they were intended to provide descriptions of ordin-
ances which the City Council would adopt, or other
actions the City would take, in the future. Certainly,
the Council has not adopted an ordinance to implement:
Program 25 and, therefore, I did not feel that it
provides an impenetrable obstacle to the approval
of this subdivision map. (I might point out in addition
that Program 10 provides that the demolition of existing
multi-family residential dwellings is not to be author-
ized unless provision has been made for replacing
the units. In view of the fact that Mrs. Sorrel
has obtained the removal permit from the Rent Control
Board, she would be authorized to demolish the units
Members of Santa Monica City Council
November 8, 1983
Page Three
if conversion is not permitted, thereby arguably
violating the intent of Program 10.)
In view of the conflicts in the Housing
Element policies as applied to this conversion, and
based upon advice given to the Commission by the
City Attorney's Office, I concluded that the City
could approve or deny the subdivision map and, in
either case, make a finding of consistency with the
general plan. Therefore, i felt free to consider
the other aspects of the situation, including the
existence of the removal permit from the Rent Control
Board, the obvious hardship upon Mrs. Sorrel which
would follow a denial of the map and the desire of
all of the tenants in the building to acquire their
individual units.
Sincerely,
~~ /~ -
Th omas R. Larmore