ITEM 7-A

Council Mtg:  July 14, 1992

TO:       Mayor and City Council

FROM:     City Staff

ADDRESS:  3222-3232 23rd Street

          Applicants:  Mohammad Siadat and Mohammad Davari
          Appellant:   Mohammad Davari

SUBJECT:  Appeal  of  Planning  Commission  Denial  of  Tentative
          Parcel  Map  21159  and  Variance  92-013  to allow the
          subdivision  of  an  11,518  sq.ft.  parcel  with   two
          existing  on-site  single family dwellings into two (2)
          parcels of 6,293 sq.ft. (Parcel  1)  and  5,225  sq.ft.
          (Parcel  2).   Parcel  1 has a substandard depth of 59'
          and a 12' nonconforming front yard setback.   Parcel  2
          has  a  substandard depth of 88' and a nonconforming 5'
          rear yard setback.

INTRODUCTION

This is an appeal of a Planning Commission  denial  of  Tentative
Parcel  Map 21159 and Variance 92-013 to allow the subdivision of
an 11,518 sq.ft. parcel in the  R1  district  with  two  existing
single  family  dwellings  into  two  parcels,  with  substandard
lengths and  nonconforming  building  setbacks.   No  changes  to
existing structures are proposed.

This report recommends that  the  Council  deny  the  appeal  and
uphold  the  Planning Commission's denial of Tentative Parcel Map
21159 and Variance 92-013.

The applicant has agreed to an extension of the 30-day limit  for
the  City Council to act upon the appeal from July 11 to July 14,
1992.

BACKGROUND

The  Planning  Commission  denied  the  applicants'  request  for
Tentative Parcel Map 21159 and Variance 92-013 on June 3, 1992 to
allow the subdivision of  an  11,518  sq.ft.  parcel  in  the  R1
(Single  Family  Residential)  District with two existing on-site
single family dwellings into two  parcels,  one  equal  to  6,293
sq.ft.  (Parcel 1) and the other equal to 5,225 sq.ft. (Parcel 2)
(Attachment B).

The existing 11,518 sq.ft. parcel is  located  on  the  northwest
corner  of  23rd  Street and Dewey Street in the R1 District.  An
alley is located to the north.  A  radius  and  location  map  is
included  as  Attachment  F.   The existing parcel dimensions are
shown on Attachment J.  As indicated on the Tentative Parcel Map,
the  parcel  has  a  slightly  irregular  trapezoidal shape.  Two
existing, one-story single family structures of 1,463 sq.ft.  and
1,125  sq.ft.  exist on-site.  A two car garage with alley access
exists for the residence at the rear.  An attached two car garage
exists  for  the  residence  at  the  front  of the property with
existing access from 23rd Street.  No  changes  are  proposed  to
existing on-site structures.

The subdivision of the existing parcel into 2 parcels is proposed
so  that  separate ownership may be obtained (Attachment A), with
one residence on each parcel.  Parcel 1, with frontage along 23rd
Street  and  the  alley  to the north, has a 59' depth and a 107'
width for a total  of  6,293  sq.ft.  (Attachment  I).   Proposed
setbacks include a 12' front yard (along 23rd Street), 7' and 34'
side yards, and a 25' rear yard.  A 20'  front  yard,  7'2"  side
yard  and  25'  rear  yard  setback  is required for the proposed
parcel.  A variance is required for the  substandard  59'  depth;
the  parcel  would  have  a   nonconforming 12' front yard and 7'
north sideyard.  Code requires a minimum width of 50'  and  depth
of  100'.   Parcel  2,  with frontage along 23rd Street and Dewey
Street, has an 88' depth and a 59' width for  a  total  of  5,225
sq.ft.  Proposed setbacks include an existing 32' front yard, 12'
and 18' side yards and a 5' rear yard.  A 20' front yard, a  5.9'
side  yard and 25' rear yard setback is required for the proposed
parcel.  A variance is required for the  substandard  88'  depth;
the  parcel would have a nonconforming 5' rear yard setback.  The
parcels meet the minimum lot size  requirement  of  5,000  sq.ft.
(Attachment C).

The Santa Monica Municipal Code allows  modification  of  minimum
parcel  dimensions  [Section  9113.3  (a)].   The application was
denied by the Planning Commission  based  on  findings  that  the
proposed  subdivision is not similar to the prevailing pattern of
development in the  area  and  that  substandard  setbacks  would
exist. (Attachment B).

APPEAL ISSUES

The applicant appealed  the  denial  of  the  tentative  map  and
variance  application,  stating  that  the findings of dissimilar
development pattern of the  proposed  parcels  and  inconsistency
with  the  General  Plan  are not substantiated with text or maps
from the General Plan (Attachment A).  The applicant also  states
that  the density and land use of the property is consistent with
the General Plan and that  the  existing  parcel  has  twice  the
required  parcel  area  in the R1 district.  The applicant points
out that there are two lots at the west end  of  the  block  with
homes  under  separate  ownership which are oriented in a similar
fashion to the proposed subdivision.  The applicant contends that
there  was no review of lots across the Los Angeles City boundary
which are similar in orientation  to  the  proposed  subdivision.
The  applicant  stated  that  a  variance,  granted in 1946 which
allowed  construction of the second  dwelling  on-site,  was  not
addressed  in  the  findings.  The applicant also suggests that a
deed  restriction  running  with  the  property  to   require   a
Conditional  Use  Permit  for  further  expansion of the existing
homes be recorded as a condition of approval.

ANALYSIS

Policy 1.1.1 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan requires
that  all  development be consistent with the Land Use and Zoning
Maps.  While the General Plan does not specify that proposed lots
be  similar  to  existing  lots,  the proposed subdivision of the
existing R1 parcel into two  parcels  would  permit  a  permanent
increase  in  density  of  the existing parcel and an increase in
intensity of  the  land  use,  as  two  dwellings  would  now  be
permitted where only one is currently permitted by code.

The two existing single family structures are  considered  to  be
legal  nonconforming  uses  pursuant  to  the Municipal Code.  If
substantial alterations were made to either one of the structures
(a  "substantial  remodel"  under  the Municipal Code),one of the
structures would be required to be demolished.  Approval  of  the
subdivision would allow permanent development rights for a single
family structure on each new parcel.  The applicant's proposal to
require recordation of a deed restriction requiring a Conditional
Use Permit for expansion of the structure would not mitigate  the
impacts of increased development rights.

Review of original building permit applications  reveals  that  a
Variance  (#682-Y)  was  granted  to  allow the construction of a
second dwelling unit to the rear of the site in 1966  (Attachment
G).   The first unit on the site was built in 1955 and appears on
the plot plan for the 1966 application that was  for  subdivision
into  two  parcels.   This  1966  application  was  not  approved
(Attachment G).

The applicant points out that two other lots facing  21st  Street
and  Dewey  Street  contain  single  family  structures  that are
oriented towards 21st Street (Attachment H).  The assessor's  map
shows  that a waiver of parcel map line divides the two lots into
parcels  with  dimensions  and  lot  sizes  conforming  to   code
requirements.   It  is  important  to note that in this case, two
parcels were reoriented from facing Dewey Street to  21st  Street
with  no  net  increase  in  number  of parcels.  However, in the
proposed subdivision, the parcel would be reoriented  from  Dewey
Street  to  23rd Street with an increase from one to two parcels,
thus effecting an increase in density.

The  applicant  has  submitted  copies  of  the  building  permit
applications  for  3221  and  3233 21st Street (Attachment I).  A
single family dwelling was constructed on-site in  1948  oriented
towards 21st Street.  The second dwelling was constructed in 1988
and is also oriented towards 21st Street.  A required  25'  front
yard setback is provided for both structures (Attachment H & I).

The applicant contends that there was no review of lots over  the
City  boundary  line  in Los Angeles.  The Santa Monica Municipal
Code does not suggest taking into account the development pattern
of a neighboring jurisdiction.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

On June 3, 1992, the Planning Commission denied  Tentative  Tract
Map  21159 and Variance 92-013,a request to allow the subdivision
of an 11,518 sq.ft. parcel in the R1 District  into  two  parcels
with   substandard   lengths  and  nonconforming  setbacks.   The
Planning  Commission  denial  was  based  on  findings  that  the
subdivision  is  not  in conformance with the general development
pattern of the City and that there are no  special  circumstances
applicable  to  the  property,  as its size and configuration are
similar to other R1 properties  in  the  surrounding  area.   The
applicant  states  that  the decision was not consistent with the
General Plan, that the density and land use  is  consistent  with
the  General  Plan,  that  other  lots  to  the southwest exhibit
similar characteristics as the proposed lots, and  that  a  prior
variance  permitting  the  construction  of  the second structure
on-site was not addressed.  The applicant also  proposes  that  a
deed  restriction  requiring  a  CUP  for  any development to the
existing structures be recorded as a condition of approval.

Approval of the Tentative Parcel Map  and  Variance  applications
would increase the permitted intensity of land use and density of
the existing R1 parcel and  prolong  the  existing  nonconforming
nature of the structures on-site.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT

The recommendation presented in this report  does  not  have  any
budget or fiscal impact.

REQUIRED NOTIFICATION

Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9131.5,  notice  of  the  City
Council  meeting  was  mailed  to  all owners and residential and
commercial tenants of property located within a 300  foot  radius
of  the  project  at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to
the City Council meeting.  A copy of the notice is  contained  in
Attachment D.

RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that the Council deny  the  appeal
and  uphold  the  Planning Commission's denial of Tentative Tract
Map 21159 and Variance 92-013 to  allow  the  subdivision  of  an
11,518  sq.ft. parcel in the R1 district with two existing single
family dwellings into two (2) parcels  with  substandard  lengths
and nonconforming setbacks with the following findings:

VARIANCE FINDINGS

1.     There are no special circumstances or exceptional  charac-
       teristics  applicable  to the property involved, including
       size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, or  to
       the  intended  use  or development of the property that do
       not apply to other properties in  the  vicinity  under  an
       identical  zoning  classification, in that the orientation
       of the parcel as currently existing  is  similar  to  sur-
       rounding  properties  and  in  that  the number of on-site
       dwellings is legal nonconforming and  that  demolition  of
       50%  or  more  of all exterior walls or load-bearing walls
       will cause the nonconforming portion to  be  brought  into
       conformance with the code.

2.     The granting of such variance will be detrimental  or  in-
       jurious  to  the  property  or improvements in the general
       vicinity and district in which the property is located, in
       that  the orientation and size of proposed parcels, Parcel
       1 and Parcel 2, are not similar to the prevailing  pattern
       of  development  in the area, in that substandard setbacks
       would exist and in that the  intensity  of  land  use  and
       density  would  increase  permanently  for the existing R1
       parcel.

3.     The strict application of the provisions of  this  Chapter
       would  not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary
       hardships, not including economic difficulties or economic
       hardships,  in  that the existing parcel fits into the es-
       tablished pattern of development.

4.     The granting of a variance will be contrary to or in  con-
       flict  with  the general purposes and intent of this Chap-
       ter, or to the  goals,  objectives  and  policies  of  the
       General Plan, in that the orientation and size of proposed
       parcels, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, are  not  similar  to  the
       prevailing pattern of development in the area, in that the
       subdivision would result in substandard setbacks,  and  in
       that  the intensity of land use and density would increase
       permanently for the existing R1 parcel.

5.     The variance would impair the integrity and  character  of
       the  district  in  which  it is to be located, in that the
       orientation and size of proposed  parcels,  Parcel  1  and
       Parcel  2,  are  not  similar to the prevailing pattern of
       development in the area and in that the intensity of  land
       use  and density would increase permanently for the exist-
       ing R1 parcel.

6.     The subject site is physically suitable for  the  proposed
       variance,  in that the parcel is level and the proposal is
       to subdivide the existing parcel into two parcels with  no
       change to existing structures.

7.     There are adequate provisions for water,  sanitation,  and
       public  utilities and services to ensure that the proposed
       variance would not be detrimental  to  public  health  and
       safety, in that the proposal is subdivide an existing par-
       cel into two parcels with all amenities on-site.

8.     There will be adequate provisions  for  public  access  to
       serve  the  subject  variance  proposal, in that access to
       Parcel 1 exists from Dewey Place North and access to  Par-
       cel 2 exists from 23rd Street and no changes to access are
       proposed.

9.     The strict application of the provisions of Chapter 10  of
       the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning
       Ordinance would not result in unreasonable deprivation  of
       the use or enjoyment of the property, in that the proposal
       existing parcel is developed with two single family struc-
       tures and no changes are proposed.

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FINDINGS

1.     The proposed subdivision, together with its provision  for
       its  design  and  improvements, is not consistent with ap-
       plicable general and specific plans as adopted by the City
       of  Santa  Monica,  in  that  the proposed parcels are not
       similar to the prevailing pattern of  development  in  the
       area,  in that the subdivision would result in substandard
       parcel lengths and setbacks, and in that the intensity  of
       land  use  and  density would increase permanently for the
       existing R1 parcel.

2.     The site is physically suitable for the proposed  type  of
       development,  in  that the proposal is to subdivide an ex-
       isting parcel into two parcels with  two  existing  single
       family structures to remain and no changes are proposed.

3.     The site is physically suitable for the  proposed  density
       of  development,  in  that the proposal is to subdivide an
       existing parcel into two parcels with two existing  single
       family structures to remain and no changes are proposed.

4.     The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements
       will  not  cause  substantial environmental damage or sub-
       stantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or  their
       habitat,  in that the proposal is to subdivide an existing
       parcel into two parcels with two  existing  single  family
       structures to remain and no changes are proposed.

5.     The design of the subdivision or the type  of  improvement
       will not cause serious public health problems, in that the
       proposal is to subdivide an existing parcel into two  par-
       cels  with two existing single family structures to remain
       and with no changes are proposed.

6.     The design of the subdivision or the type of  improvements
       will  not  conflict with easements, acquired by the public
       at large, for access through, or use of,  property  within
       the  proposed subdivision, in that the proposal is to sub-
       divide an existing R1 parcel  into  two  parcels  with  no
       restrictions or changes to existing access.

ATTACHMENTS:

A.     Appeal form dated 6/11/92.
B.     Statement of Official Action dated 6/3/92.
C.     Staff Memorandum to Planning Commission dated 6/3/92.
D.     Notice of Public Hearing dated 7/14/92.
E.     Letter from Staff to Mohammad Davari dated 6/17/92.
F.     Radius and Location Map
G.     Applications  for  Building  Permits  dated   3/7/55   and
       6/10/66.
H.     Assessor's Map, Tract No. 8052, Map Bk.  91-38  and  Tract
       No. 8542, Map Bk. 104-27-29.
I.     Letter from L. Paul Cook to City Council dated 6/26/92.
J.     Tentative Parcel Map 21159
K.     Site Photographs

Prepared by:  D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
              Susan White, Assistant Planner
              Planning Division
              Land Use and Transportation Management Department


                          ATTACHMENT B

                       PLANNING COMMISSION
                  STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION

PROJECT

    CASE NUMBER:   Tentative Parcel Map 21159 & Variance 92-013

    LOCATION:      3222-3232 23rd Street

    APPLICANT:     Mohammad Siadat and Mohammad Davari

    CASE PLANNER:  Susan White, Assistant Planner

    REQUEST:       Application for a  Tentative  Parcel  Map  and
                   Variance  to allow the subdivision of a 11,518
                   sq.ft. parcel with two existing on-site single
                   family  dwellings  into  two  parcels of 6,293
                   sq.ft. (Parcel 1) and 5,225 sq.ft. (Parcel 2).
                   Parcel 1 has a substandard length of 59' and a
                   12' front yard setback.  Parcel 2 has  a  sub-
                   standard  length  of  88'  and  5'  rear  yard
                   setback.

    CEQA STATUS:   Categorically exempt per  the  City  of  Santa
                   Monica  Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA;
                   Class 5.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

      6/3/92    Date.

                Approved based  on  the  following  findings  and
                subject to the conditions below.

        X       Denied.

                Other.

EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF ACTION(S) IF NOT APPEALED:

   6/13/92      Case #VAR 92-013

   6/13/92      Case #TPM 21159

VARIANCE FINDINGS

1.     There are no special circumstances or exceptional  charac-
       teristics  applicable  to the property involved, including
       size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, or  to
       the  intended  use  or development of the property that do
       not apply to other properties in  the  vicinity  under  an
       identical  zoning  classification, in that the property as
       currently existing is similar to surrounding properties.

2.     The granting of such variance will be detrimental  or  in-
       jurious  to  the  property  or improvements in the general
       vicinity and district in which the property is located, in
       that  the orientation and size of proposed parcels, Parcel
       1 and Parcel 2, are not similar to the prevailing  pattern
       of  development in the area and substandard setbacks would
       exist.

3.     The strict application of the provisions of  this  Chapter
       would  not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary
       hardships, not including economic difficulties or economic
       hardships,  in  that the existing parcel fits into the es-
       tablished pattern of development.

4.     The granting of a variance will be contrary to or in  con-
       flict  with  the general purposes and intent of this Chap-
       ter, or to the  goals,  objectives  and  policies  of  the
       General Plan, in that the orientation and size of proposed
       parcels, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, are  not  similar  to  the
       prevailing  pattern  of  development  in  the area and the
       subdivision would result in substandard setbacks.

5.     The variance would impair the integrity and  character  of
       the  district  in  which  it is to be located, in that the
       orientation and size of proposed  parcels,  Parcel  1  and
       Parcel  2,  are  not  similar to the prevailing pattern of
       development in the area.

6.     The subject site is physically suitable for  the  proposed
       variance,  in that the parcel is level and the proposal is
       to subdivide the existing parcel into two parcels with  no
       change to existing structures.

7.     There are adequate provisions for water,  sanitation,  and
       public  utilities and services to ensure that the proposed
       variance would not be detrimental  to  public  health  and
       safety,  in  that  the  proposal  is subdivide an existing
       parcel into two parcels with all amenities on-site.

8.     There will be adequate provisions  for  public  access  to
       serve  the  subject  variance  proposal, in that access to
       Parcel 1 exists from Dewey Place North and access to  Par-
       cel 2 exists from 23rd Street and no changes to access are
       proposed.

9.     The strict application of the provisions of Chapter 10  of
       the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning
       Ordinance would not result in unreasonable deprivation  of
       the use or enjoyment of the property, in that the proposal
       existing  parcel  is  developed  with  two  single  family
       structures and no changes are proposed.

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FINDINGS

1.     The proposed subdivision, together with its provision  for
       its  design  and  improvements, is not consistent with ap-
       plicable general and specific plans as adopted by the City
       of  Santa  Monica,  in  that  the proposed parcels are not
       similar to the prevailing pattern of  development  in  the
       area  and the subdivision would result in substandard par-
       cel lengths and setbacks.

2.     The site is physically suitable for the proposed  type  of
       development,  in  that the proposal is to subdivide an ex-
       isting parcel into two parcels with  two  existing  single
       family structures to remain and no changes are proposed.

3.     The site is physically suitable for the  proposed  density
       of  development,  in  that the proposal is to subdivide an
       existing parcel into two parcels with two existing  single
       family structures to remain and no changes are proposed.

4.     The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements
       will  not  cause  substantial environmental damage or sub-
       stantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or  their
       habitat,  in that the proposal is to subdivide an existing
       parcel into two parcels with two  existing  single  family
       structures to remain and no changes are proposed.

5.     The design of the subdivision or the type  of  improvement
       will not cause serious public health problems, in that the
       proposal is to subdivide an existing parcel into two  par-
       cels  with two existing single family structures to remain
       and with no changes are proposed.

6.     The design of the subdivision or the type of  improvements
       will  not  conflict with easements, acquired by the public
       at large, for access through, or use of,  property  within
       the  proposed subdivision, in that the proposal is to sub-
       divide an existing R1 parcel  into  two  parcels  with  no
       restrictions or changes to existing access.

VOTE

Ayes:     Mechur, Nelson, Polhemus, Pyne, Rosenstein
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:   Gilpin, Morales

NOTICE

If this is a final decision not subject to further  appeal  under
the  City  of  Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Or-
dinance, the time within which judicial review of  this  decision
must  be  sought  is  governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section
1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant  to
Municipal Code Section 1400.

I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurate-
ly reflects the final determination of the Planning Commission of
the City of Santa Monica.


            signature                              date

            Ralph Mechur, Chairperson
            Please Print Name and Title


                          ATTACHMENT C

Planning Commission Mtg:  June 3, 1992

TO:       The Honorable Planning Commission

FROM:     Planning Staff

SUBJECT:  Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 21159 & Variance 92-013

          Address:    3222-3232 23rd Street
          Applicant:  Mohammad Siadat and Mohammad Davari

INTRODUCTION

Action:  Application for  a  Vesting  Tentative  Parcel  Map  and
Variance  to allow the subdivision of a 11,518 sq.ft. parcel with
two existing on-site single family dwellings into two (2) parcels
of 6,293 sq.ft. (Parcel 1) and 5,225 sq.ft. (Parcel 2).  Parcel 1
has a substandard length of 59' and a  12'  front  yard  setback.
Parcel  2  has  a  substandard  length  of 88' and a 5' rear yard
setback.

Recommendation:  Denial.

Permit Streamlining Expiration Date:  October 14, 1992

Subdivision Action Deadline:  June 3, 1992

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The subject property is an 11,505 sq.ft. parcel  located  on  the
west  side  of  23rd  Street between Navy Street and Dewey Street
having a frontage of 194.93 feet.  Surrounding uses consist of  a
single  family  residence  (R1) to the north, the City of Los An-
geles to the south, Santa Monica Airport (C5) to the east  and  a
single  family residence (R1) to the west.  Existing on-site uses
include two single family dwellings of 1,462.5 sq.ft. and 1,124.8
sq.ft.   There are fourteen mature trees on the site.  No changes
are proposed to the existing on-site structures,  vehicle  access
or landscaping.

Zoning District:    R1

Land Use District:  (Single Family Residential)

Existing Parcel     59.08' x 194.93' x 59.08' x 195.17' =
Area:               11,518 sq.ft.

Proposed Parcel     Parcel 1 - 107' x 59' = 6,293 sq.ft.
Area:               Parcel 2 -  59' x 88' = 5,225 sq.ft.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting  a  Variance  and  Vesting  Tentative
Parcel  Map  to subdivide an existing 11,518 sq.ft. parcel into 2
parcels of 6,293 sq.ft. and 5,225 sq.ft.  Parcel 2, facing  Dewey
Street,  has a substandard length of 88' and, due to the proposed
lot split, the existing structure will have a nonconforming  rear
yard  setback  of  5'.   Parcel  1,  facing  23rd  Street,  has a
substandard length of 59' and, due to the proposed lot split, the
existing  structure  will have a nonconforming front yard setback
of 12' and a nonconforming north side setback of  a  7  feet.   A
minimum  depth  of  100  feet  and a minimum width of 50 feet are
required for an R1 parcel.  Under Municipal Code Section  9113.3,
a variance may be granted to allow modification of minimum parcel
dimensions.

MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE

The proposed project is inconsistent with the Municipal Code  and
the  General Plan in that the proposed parcels are substandard in
terms of length and required yard setbacks, and the  parcels  are
not  similar in orientation with the existing pattern of develop-
ment along 23rd Street.

CEQA STATUS

The project is exempt per the City of Santa Monica Guidelines for
Implementation of CEQA; Class 5.

RENT CONTROL STATUS

An owner-occupied exemption exists for the two (2) existing  sin-
gle family dwellings.

FEES

The project is not subject to any additional  Planning  fees.   A
final map filing fee of $350.00 is required prior to City Council
approval if the project is approved.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9130.8, within 30  days  after
the subject application was deemed complete, the applicant posted
a  sign  on  the  property  stating  the  following  information:
Project   case   number,  brief  project  description,  name  and
telephone number of  applicant,  site  address,  date,  time  and
location  of public hearing, and the Planning and Zoning Division
phone number.  It is the applicant's responsibility to update the
hearing date if it is changed after posting.

In addition, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9131.5, notice of
the  public  hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and
commercial tenants of property located within a 300  foot  radius
of  the  project  at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to
the hearing.  A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment B.

ANALYSIS

The applicant is proposing the subdivision of an existing  11,518
parcel  into  two  (2)  parcels in the R1 district.  The existing
parcel dimensions are approximately  59'  in  width  by  195'  in
length.   This corner parcel faces 23rd Street to the east, Dewey
Street to the south, and an alley to the north.   There  are  two
existing  one story single family structures on-site.  No changes
are proposed to the structures.  Access to an  existing  two  car
garage  exists  from  the alley for Parcel 1.  Driveway access to
Parcel 2 exists from 23rd Street.  No changes to existing  access
are proposed.

Two parcels are proposed.  Parcel 1,  with  frontage  along  23rd
Street  and  the  north alley, has a 59 foot depth and a 107 foot
width for a total of 6,293 sq.ft.  Proposed  setbacks  include  a
12'  front yard (along 23rd Street), 7' and 34' side yards, and a
25' rear yard.  A variance is required for  the  substandard  59'
depth  and  nonconforming  12'  front yard and 7' north sideyard.
Parcel 2, with frontage along 23rd Street and Dewey  Street,  has
an  88 foot depth and a 59 foot width for a total of 5,225 sq.ft.
Proposed setbacks include an existing 32' front yard, 12' and 18'
side  yards  and  a 5' rear yard.  A variance is required for the
substandard 88' depth and nonconforming 5' rear yard setback.

The minimum dimensions of 50 feet in width by 100' in length  and
a minimum size of 5,000 sq.ft. are required for parcels in the R1
District.  Municipal Code Section 9113.3 allows the  modification
of  minimum parcel dimensions and yard setbacks on parcels with a
depth of 90 feet or less or a width of 39 feet or less.  The  ap-
plicant  is  requesting  a  variance  for both lot dimensions and
front and rear yard setbacks.  The parcels do  meet  the  minimum
lot  size of 5,000 sq.ft.  The orientation of the two parcels, as
proposed however, are not similar to the dominant orientation  of
parcels  in  the surrounding residential neighborhood.  All other
parcels face Dewey Street and have parcel dimensions greater than
the  minimum  required  by  code.   The  proposed subdivision and
resulting parcels are not  in  accordance  with  this  prevailing
pattern of development.

CONCLUSION

The applicant is proposing the subdivision of  an  11,518  sq.ft.
into two parcels of 6,293 (Parcel 1) and 5,225 sq.ft. (Parcel 2).
A variance is requested for proposed parcel dimensions  and  yard
setbacks  less  than the minimum required.  Although code permits
granting of variances for parcel  dimensions  and  setbacks,  the
orientation  of  the  proposed parcels is not similar to the pre-
vailing pattern of development in the area.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Variance  92-
013  and  Vesting  Tentative  Parcel Map 21159 with the following
findings:

VARIANCE FINDINGS

1.     There are no special circumstances or exceptional  charac-
       teristics  applicable  to the property involved, including
       size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, or  to
       the  intended  use  or development of the property that do
       not apply to other properties in  the  vicinity  under  an
       identical  zoning  classification, in that the property as
       currently existing is similar to surrounding properties.

2.     The granting of such variance will be detrimental  or  in-
       jurious  to  the  property  or improvements in the general
       vicinity and district in which the property is located, in
       that  the orientation and size of proposed parcels, Parcel
       1 and Parcel 2, are not similar to the prevailing  pattern
       of  development in the area and substandard setbacks would
       exist.

3.     The strict application of the provisions of  this  Chapter
       would  not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary
       hardships, not including economic difficulties or economic
       hardships,  in  that the existing parcel fits into the es-
       tablished pattern of development.

4.     The granting of a variance will be contrary to or in  con-
       flict  with  the general purposes and intent of this Chap-
       ter, or to the  goals,  objectives  and  policies  of  the
       General Plan, in that the orientation and size of proposed
       parcels, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, are  not  similar  to  the
       prevailing  pattern  of  development  in  the area and the
       subdivision would result in substandard setbacks.

5.     The variance would impair the integrity and  character  of
       the  district  in  which  it is to be located, in that the
       orientation and size of proposed  parcels,  Parcel  1  and
       Parcel  2,  are  not  similar to the prevailing pattern of
       development in the area.

6.     The subject site is physically suitable for  the  proposed
       variance,  in that the parcel is level and the proposal is
       to subdivide the existing parcel into two parcels with  no
       change to existing structures.

7.     There are adequate provisions for water,  sanitation,  and
       public  utilities and services to ensure that the proposed
       variance would not be detrimental  to  public  health  and
       safety,  in  that  the  proposal  is subdivide an existing
       parcel into two parcels with all amenities on-site.

8.     There will be adequate provisions  for  public  access  to
       serve  the  subject  variance  proposal, in that access to
       Parcel 1 exists from Dewey Place North and access to  Par-
       cel 2 exists from 23rd Street and no changes to access are
       proposed.

9.     The strict application of the provisions of Chapter 10  of
       the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning
       Ordinance would not result in unreasonable deprivation  of
       the use or enjoyment of the property, in that the proposal
       existing  parcel  is  developed  with  two  single  family
       structures and no changes are proposed.

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FINDINGS

1.     The proposed subdivision, together with its provision  for
       its  design  and  improvements, is not consistent with ap-
       plicable general and specific plans as adopted by the City
       of  Santa  Monica,  in  that  the proposed parcels are not
       similar to the prevailing pattern of  development  in  the
       area  and the subdivision would result in substandard par-
       cel lengths and setbacks.

2.     The site is physically suitable for the proposed  type  of
       development,  in  that the proposal is to subdivide an ex-
       isting parcel into two parcels with  two  existing  single
       family structures to remain and no changes are proposed.

3.     The site is physically suitable for the  proposed  density
       of  development,  in  that the proposal is to subdivide an
       existing parcel into two parcels with two existing  single
       family structures to remain and no changes are proposed.

4.     The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements
       will  not  cause  substantial environmental damage or sub-
       stantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or  their
       habitat,  in that the proposal is to subdivide an existing
       parcel into two parcels with two  existing  single  family
       structures to remain and no changes are proposed.

5.     The design of the subdivision or the type  of  improvement
       will not cause serious public health problems, in that the
       proposal is to subdivide an existing parcel into two  par-
       cels  with two existing single family structures to remain
       and with no changes are proposed.

6.     The design of the subdivision or the type of  improvements
       will  not  conflict with easements, acquired by the public
       at large, for access through, or use of,  property  within
       the  proposed subdivision, in that the proposal is to sub-
       divide an existing R1 parcel  into  two  parcels  with  no
       restrictions or changes to existing access.

Prepared by:  Susan White, Assistant Planner

Attachments:

A.   Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
B.   Notice of Public Hearing
C.   Radius and Location Map
D.   Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 21159
E.   Photographs of Site and Surrounding Properties


                          ATTACHMENT A

           MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE

                  Land Use
Category          Element  Municipal Code      Project

Permitted Use     Single   Single Family       2 Existing Single
                  fam.res. Dwelling            Family Dwellings

Moratorium Status    N/A

Dwelling Units    Single   Single Family       Single Family
                  fam.res. Dwelling            Dwellings to
                                               Remain

Parcel Dimensions          50'W x 100'L        Parcel 1-
and size                   = 5,000 sq.ft.      107'W x 59'L=
                           minimum.            6,293 sq.ft
                                               Parcel 2-
                                               59'W x 88' L =
                                               5,225 sq.ft.

Setbacks

     Frontyard       N/A   20'                 Parcel 1 - 12'
                                               Parcel 2 - 32'

     Sideyard        N/A   7'2"                Parcel 1 -
                                                7' & 34'
                                               Parcel 2 -
                     N/A   5.9                 12' & 18'
      Rearyard       N/A   25'                 Parcel 1 - 25'
                                               Parcel 2 -  5'


                          ATTACHMENT D

                 NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

To:       Concerned Persons

From:     The City of Santa Monica

Subject of Hearing:

A Public Hearing  will  be  held  by  the  City  Council  on  the
following request:

TIME:                TUESDAY,                 , 1992 AT 7:30 P.M.

LOCATION:            COUNCIL CHAMBER, ROOM 213, CITY HALL
                     1685 MAIN STREET, SANTA MONICA

HOW TO COMMENT:

The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment  on  this  and
other projects.  You or your representative, or any other persons
may comment at the City Council's public hearing, or by writing a
letter.

Letters should be addressed to:
                                City Council, City Clerk's Office
                                1685 Main Street, Room 102
                                Santa Monica, California 90401

MORE INFORMATION

If  desired,  further  information  on  any  application  may  be
obtained  from the City Planning Division at the address above or
by calling (310) 458-8341.

The meeting facility is handicapped accessible.  If you have  any
special  needs such as sign language interpreting, please contact
the Office of the Disabled at (310)458-8701.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if  this
matter  is subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be
limited to  only  those  issues  raised  at  the  Public  Hearing
described  in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered
to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the Public Hearing.

Esto  es  un  aviso  sobre  una  audencia  publica  para  revisar
applicaciones proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica.  Esto puedo
ser de interes a usted.  Si  deseas  mas  informacion,  favor  de
llamar a Elsa Gonzalez en la Division de Plantificacion al numero
(310) 458-8341.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:


D. KENYON WEBSTER
Principal Planner