Council Mtg: November 26, 2002 Santa
Monica, California
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal
02APP-019 of the Planning Commission’s Denial of Design Compatibility Permit
01DCP-007, Development Review Permit 01DR-007 and Tentative Tract Map 01TM-005
(Vesting Tentative Tract Map 53464), and adoption of Final Negative Declaration
01-006, to allow the construction of a two-story, ten (10)-unit townhouse style
courtyard condominium development.
Applicant/Appellant: Sunset Park Villas, LLC
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City
Council uphold the appeal, adopt the Final Negative Declaration and approve the
Development Review Permit, Design Compatibility Permit and Tentative Tract Map
to allow construction of a 10-unit courtyard-style condominium building at the
subject site. The Planning Commission,
at its October 16, 2002 meeting, technically denied the project. The appeal statement is contained in
Attachment B and the two Planning Commission staff reports are contained in
Attachments C and D.
BACKGROUND
The applicant/appellant proposes to
construct a two-story, 10-unit courtyard style condominium development with 22
subterranean parking spaces accessed from the street at the center of the
property.
On July 10, 2002, the Planning Commission adopted a
Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for
the proposed project and continued the hearing, requesting that the applicant
address several design compatibility concerns. On October 2, a second hearing was held, and the application was
continued again with a request to staff to look into the feasibility of
lowering the first floor height to improve the project’s pedestrian orientation. On October 16, 2002, the Planning Commission
technically denied the project following two motions for approval, both of
which failed to obtain the four necessary votes to approve the project. Two
members of the Commission were absent.
At all three public hearings, several members of the public, mostly
residents on the same block of 28th Street, spoke in support of the
project. Several residents of the
building, concerned about the loss of their rental housing, spoke in opposition
to the project at the first two hearings.
On October 24, 2002, the applicant
appealed the Planning Commission’s denial based on the reasons listed in the
appeal statement contained in Attachment C.
Proposed is the construction of a
two-story, 10-unit condominium building, 23 feet in height, with a 22-space
subterranean parking garage accessed from 28th Street. There is no rear alley. The existing apartment buildings and
carports would be demolished. The proposed townhouse-style units would be
arranged in a U-shape around a 19-foot wide central courtyard. Although slightly varied in arrangement,
each unit would contain a semi-subterranean parking garage, with a workshop,
laundry room and half-bath that provides direct access to the condominium unit. The units are designed with living rooms,
dining rooms, kitchens and a half bath on the first floor and three bedrooms
and two full baths on the second floor.
The density allowed in this zone would permit 12 units to be developed
on this property, but only 10 are proposed.
Planning Commission Action
At a public hearing held on October
16, 2002, the Commission made two motions for approval of the proposed
application. The first motion sought to
approve the project as submitted, with the condition that the building floor
plate be lowered by 4 inches and with some landscape modifications proposed by
the applicant. With two Commissioners
absent, the 3-2 vote was not sufficient for approval. A second motion to approve the project, with a condition that the
driveway and garage entrance be relocated to the side of the property was also
rejected by a vote of 2-3. Because both
motions lacked the minimum requirement of four affirmative votes, the
application was deemed denied.
Appeal Analysis
The appellant believes that, “the Planning Commission
acted arbitrarily and capriciously, abused its discretion, and violated the law
insofar as it failed to approve this project.” The appellant contends that the
denial violated the Government Code and that the Planning Commission was
legally required to approve the project.
Further, notwithstanding the appeal, the appellant states that the
vesting tentative tract map has automatically been deemed approved per
provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance.
The appellant requests Council approval of the project as submitted to
the Commission on October 16, 2002.
While the appellant states that he is still willing to consider moving
the driveway location to the side of the project, he believes that the project
as proposed with the central driveway is a superior alternative.
In response to Commission concerns at the July 10,
2002 meeting, the applicant revised the project design. The revisions included minimizing the
driveway appearance through use of grasscrete, removal of architectural
elements that separated the courtyard, modifications to the front units to more
directly connect them to the street, expansion of the courtyard, and
modifications to the side elevations to enhance the use of the private open
space.
On October 2, 2002, the Commission reviewed these
changes, but raised additional issues regarding the height of the first floor
and the project’s relationship to the street.
The first floor is located 3 feet above average natural grade over a
subterranean garage. Although
consistent with zoning ordinance requirements, Commissioners were concerned
that the raised design was not pedestrian-friendly and therefore not compliant
with the DCP finding that the project relates harmoniously to surrounding sites
and the neighborhood. The hearing was
continued for 2 weeks to allow staff to examine the feasibility of lowering the
garage while complying with driveway slope and parking access requirements.
On October 16, 2002, staff reported that the garage
height could be lowered a maximum of four additional inches without generating
the need for a major modification to the project design. In addition, the applicant proposed further
minimizing the appearance of the first floor height through sloping the
landscaping up towards the building and providing additional landscaping
details to screen the building’s semi-subterranean platform from view.
The Commission also considered moving the driveway to
the side of the property. This would
require a substantial redesign of the project resulting in loss of direct garage
access to at least some of the individual units, floor area of the units
(workshops at the garage level) significant loss of private open space and
other aesthetic impacts. The Commission discussed if the driveway relocation
would negatively impact other aspects of the development and if these impacts
would outweigh the benefits. Staff
believes the driveway should not be relocated.
Relocating the driveway results in significant loss of private open
space, reduced unit amenities in terms of the parking and workshop space, and
impacts the neighboring property, which would have a deep concrete driveway
directly on their property line, rather than a landscaped area.
Staff does not agree that the Planning Commission was
legally required to approve the project.
The Design Compatibility Permit is discretionary and does not legally
require approval if a four-member majority does not agree that the findings for
approval can be made. Three
Commissioners supported approval of the project with a condition to lower the
building floor plate by 4 inches with some landscaping modifications to meet
the findings for neighborhood compatibility.
The two other Commissioners present felt that the project would only
meet the compatibility findings if the project was redesigned to move the
driveway from the center of the property to the side of the property with the
expectation that the redesign could lower the first floor by three feet so that
it would be level with the ground.
Furthermore, the Subdivision Code cited in the letter refers to time
limits for approval. However, the
applicant submitted a written waiver that allowed the City to extend the time
limits for approval of the project until December 7, 2002.
CEQA ANALYSIS
Pursuant to State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15063, a Negative Declaration was prepared and adopted by the Planning Commission on July 10, 2002. The Draft Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30-day public review period and no comments were received. The Negative Declaration is contained in Attachment F. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration concluded that the project would have a less than significant impact in each of the following areas: Geology and Soils, Air Quality, Noise, Shadows, Public Services, Cultural Resources, Aesthetics, Construction Effects, Neighborhood Effects, Cumulative Impacts. In each of the following areas, a determination of “No Impact” was made: Hydrology and Water Quality, Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Population and Housing, Land Use and Planning, Transportation/Traffic, Utilities and Service System, Economic and Social Impacts, Recreation, Agricultural Resources, Mineral Resources.
A traffic analysis was conducted for CEQA compliance (Attachment F, Appendix C) and determined that the project would not add trips to 28th Street and would not impact surrounding intersections. This conclusion results from the fact that there would be no net increase in the number of units proposed for the site.
The Council would be required to re-adopt the negative declaration prior to approval of the proposed project. Approval of a resolution adopting the Negative Declaration is recommended (Attachment E).
Conclusion
This project has been modified and improved in
response to suggestions by staff and the Commission so as to enhance the
courtyard concept, connect it visually to the street front, and minimize the
impact of the required 20-foot wide driveway.
The applicant’s proposal to slope the lawn up to the building further
enhances the project’s compatibility with the street.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Sections
9.04.20.22.050 and 9.20.14.010, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all
owners and residential and commercial tenants of property located within a
500-foot radius of the project at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to
the hearing. A copy of the notice is
contained in Attachment A.
The property has been posted with a
notice of hearing, which has remained in place from the time that the appeal
was filed. The applicant has informed
staff that he has contacted residents in the neighborhood and has kept the
tenants of the property informed as to the status of the application. To
staff’s knowledge, no community meetings have been held.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this
report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that
the City Council take the following actions:
1)
Adopt the Final
Negative Declaration; and
2)
Uphold the appeal and
approve Design Compatibility Permit 01DCP-007, Development Review Permit
01DR-007, and Tentative Tract Map 01-005 (VTM 53464), based upon the following
findings and subject to the following conditions:
TENTATIVE
PARCEL/TRACT MAP FINDINGS
1. The
proposed subdivision, together with its provision for its design and
improvements, is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as
adopted by the City of Santa Monica, in that the project, as conditioned,
conforms to the provisions of the R2 District Development Standards of the
Zoning Ordinance and the Low Density Multi-family Residential Section of the
Land Use Element of the General Plan.
2. The
site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development, in that it is
a standard lot with no unusual characteristics or terrain.
3.
The
site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development, in that a
17,988 square-foot lot in the R2 District can accommodate 12 units and only 10
units are proposed.
4. The
design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat, in that the proposed development is an infill of urban
land and does not currently support fish or significant wildlife.
5. The
design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not cause serious
public health problems in that the proposal is for a small-scale, urban infill
development that will not increase the density on the site and in that the
proposed development complies with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and
the General Plan.
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 only existing easement on
the property is located on the rear two feet of the lot in the rear yard
setback area in which no improvements are proposed and the project has
vehicular and pedestrian access from 28th Street.
1. The physical location, size, massing
and placement of proposed structures on the site and the location of proposed
amenities within the project are compatible with and relate harmoniously to
surrounding sites and neighborhoods in that the courtyard design minimizes the
building massing to soften its impact on the street. Additionally, the building
includes a pedestrian-friendly façade that features units that face the street
and façade articulation to create texture and visual interest. Also, by
conforming to the required setbacks and additional stepbacks, the adjacent
buildings are given sufficient distance so that the proposed building does not
create impacts of shade and shadows.
The proposed two story building continues a line of two-story structures
to the south and is compatible with those structures in that it is 23 feet in
height, approximately 3 feet lower than the adjacent apartment building.
2. The physical location, size, massing
and placement of proposed structures on the site, and parking access and the
location of proposed amenities within the project would not be detrimental to
the public interest, health, safety, convenience or general welfare in that the
proposed structure meets all Zoning Code requirements and absorbs all impacts
of parking and circulation on site.
Furthermore, sufficient landscaping and permeable surfaces are provided
to mitigate the level of urban run-off from the property.
3. The rights-of-way can accommodate autos
and pedestrians, including adequate parking and access, in that the 120-foot
frontage can accommodate the proposed driveway at the center of the
development, which is of sufficient width to allow on-site circulation and
access to the semi-subterranean parking spaces. Pedestrian access is provided from the street into the courtyard
and the parking area includes two pedestrian exits leading to the street and to
the rear of the property. The development
complies with the minimum number of required parking spaces. The City’s Transportation Management
Division reviewed access to off-street parking, circulation and the parking
plan for compliance.
4. The health and safety services (police,
fire etc.) and public infrastructure (e.g., utilities) are sufficient to
accommodate the new development, in that the proposed development is located
within an urbanized area that is already adequately served by existing City
infrastructure. No new safety services or public infrastructure will be
required by this project.
5. Reasonable mitigation measures have
been included for all adverse impacts identified in an Initial Study or
Environmental Impact Report, in that an Initial Study was prepared to evaluate
potential impacts of the proposed development and found that there were no
significant impacts and therefore a negative declaration was prepared. The design of the project and the City’s
standard construction mitigation measures provide sufficient conditions such
that no additional mitigation measures are necessary.
6. The proposed use conforms precisely to
the minimum requirements outlined in Section 9.04.16, Subchapter
9.04.16.01.030, in that the proposed project, as conditioned below, and shown
on the plans submitted by the applicant, demonstrates compliance with all
applicable provisions of the City of Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance.
1. The physical location, size, massing
and placement of proposed structures on the site and the location of proposed
uses within the project are compatible with and relate harmoniously to
surrounding sites and neighborhoods in that the project is consistent with the
height and density standards set forth in the Land Use Element of the General
Plan. Additionally, the project conforms with the interim zoning ordinance
requirements adopted to increase neighborhood compatibility. The courtyard
design minimizes the building massing to soften its impact on the street. By conforming to the required setbacks and
additional stepbacks, the adjacent buildings are given sufficient distance so
that the proposed two story building does not create impacts of shade and
shadows. The proposed building
continues a line of two-story structures to the south and is compatible with
those structures in that it is 23 feet in height, approximately 3 feet lower
than the adjacent apartment building.
2. The rights-of-way can accommodate autos
and pedestrians, including adequate parking and access, in that the 120-foot
frontage can accommodate the proposed driveway at the center of the
development, which is of sufficient width to allow on-site circulation and
access to the semi-subterranean parking spaces. Pedestrian access is provided from the street into the courtyard
and the parking area includes two pedestrian exits leading to the street and to
the rear of the property. The
development complies with the minimum number of required parking spaces.
3. The health and safety services (police,
fire etc.) and public infrastructure (e.g., utilities) are sufficient to
accommodate the new development, in that the proposed development is located
within an urbanized area that is already adequately served by existing City
infrastructure. No new safety services or public infrastructure will be
required by this project.
4 Any on-site provision of housing or
parks and public open space, which are part of the required project mitigation
measures required in SMMC Section 9.04.10.12, satisfactorily meet the goals of
the mitigation program in that there are no requirements in that Code section
that are applicable to this project.
5 The project is generally consistent
with the Municipal Code and General Plan in that the project as conditioned
conforms to the provisions of the R2 District Development Standards of the
Zoning Ordinance and the Low Density Multi-family Residential Section of the
Land Use Element of the General Plan.
The project is consistent with General Plan Objective 1.1 to provide
adequate housing for City residents of all incomes and Policy 1.10.1 to
encourage the development of new housing in all existing residential districts,
while still protecting the character and scale of neighborhoods.
6. Reasonable mitigation measures have
been included for all adverse impacts identified in the Initial Study in that
the Initial Study evaluated potential areas of impact affected by the proposed
development and found that there were no significant impacts. Therefore, a negative declaration was
prepared. The design of the project and
the City’s standard construction mitigation measures provide sufficient
conditions such that no additional mitigation measures are necessary.
DESIGN COMPATIBILITY PERMIT CONDITIONS
The following
conditions are recommended as standard requirements for condominium
development.
Plans
1. This
approval is for those plans dated September 13, 2002, a copy of which shall be
maintained in the files of the City Planning Division. Project development shall be consistent with
such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval.
2. The
Plans and Project shall comply with all other provisions of Chapter 1, Article
IX of the Municipal Code, (Zoning Ordinance) and all other pertinent ordinances
and General Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica.
3. Final
parking lot layout and specifications shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Parking and Traffic Engineer.
4. Minor
amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of
Planning. A significant change in the
approved concept shall be subject to Planning Commission Review. Construction shall be in conformance with the
plans submitted or as modified by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review
Board or Director of Planning.
Architectural Review Board
5. Prior
to consideration of the project by the Architectural Review Board, the
applicant shall review disabled access requirements with the Building and
Safety Division and make any necessary changes in the project design to achieve
compliance with such requirements. The
Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to
the aesthetic, landscaping, and setback impacts of any ramps or other features
necessitated by accessibility requirements.
6. Prior
to submittal of landscape plans for Architectural Review Board approval, the
applicant shall contact the Department of Environmental and Public Works
Management regarding urban runoff plans and calculations.
7. In
addition to other landscaping requirements, the Architectural Review Board, in
its review, shall ensure that at least 50% of the unexcavated side yard
setback(s) shall be adequately landscaped and shall review and approve the
species and placement of two 24” box trees in the front yard setback area.
8. Plans
for final design, landscaping, screening, trash enclosures, and signage shall
be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Board.
9. The
Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to
the project's pedestrian orientation and amenities; scale and articulation of
design elements; exterior colors, textures and materials; window treatment;
glazing; and landscaping.
10. Construction
period signage shall be subject to the approval of the Architectural Review
Board.
11. Landscaping
plans shall comply with Subchapter 5B (Landscaping Standards) of the zoning
ordinance including use of water-conserving landscaping materials, landscape
maintenance and other standards contained in the Subchapter.
12. Refuse
areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall be screened in accordance
with SMMC Section 9.04.10.02.130-9.04.10.02.150. Refuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site need,
including recycling. The Architectural
Review Board in its review shall pay particular attention to the screening of
such areas and equipment. Any rooftop
mechanical equipment shall be minimized in height and area, and shall be
located in such a way as to minimize noise and visual impacts to surrounding
properties. Unless otherwise approved
by the Architectural Review Board, rooftop mechanical equipment shall be
located at least five feet from the edge of the roof. Except for solar hot water heaters, no residential water heaters
shall be located on the roof.
13. No
gas or electric meters shall be located within the required front or street
side yard setback areas. The
Architectural Review Board in its review shall pay particular attention to the
location and screening of such meters.
Fees
14. A
Park and Recreation Facilities Tax of $200.00 per residential unit shall be due
and payable at the time of issuance of a building permit for the construction
or placement of the residential unit(s) on the subject lot, per and subject to
the provisions of Section 6.80.010 et seq. of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
Demolition
15. Until
such time as the demolition is undertaken, and unless the structure is
currently in use, the existing structure shall be maintained and secure by
boarding up all openings, erecting a security fence, and removing all debris,
bushes and planting that inhibit the easy surveillance of the property to the
satisfaction of the Building and Safety Officer and the Fire Department. Any landscaping material remaining shall be
watered and maintained until demolition occurs.
16. Unless
otherwise approved by the Community and Cultural Services Department and the
Planning Division, at the time of demolition, any street trees shall be protected
from damage, death, or removal per the requirements of Ordinance 1242 (CCS).
17. Immediately
after demolition (and during construction), a security fence, the height of
which shall be the maximum permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, shall be
maintained around the perimeter of the lot.
The lot shall be kept clear of all trash, weeds, etc.
18. Prior
to issuance of a demolition permit, applicant shall prepare for Building
Division approval a rodent and pest control plan to insure that demolition and
construction activities at the site do not create pest control impacts on the
project neighborhood.
19. No
demolition of buildings or structure built 40 years of age or older shall be
permitted until the end of a 60-day review period by the Landmarks Commission
to determine whether an application for landmark designation shall be
filed. If an application for landmark
designation is filed, no demolition shall be approved until the Landmarks
Commission makes a final determination on the application.
Construction
20. Unless
otherwise approved by the Department of Environmental and Public Works
Management, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable during the grading
and construction phase of the project.
21. Sidewalks,
curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need replacing or removal as a
result of the project as determined by the Department of Environmental and
Public Works Management shall be reconstructed to the satisfaction of the
Department of Environmental and Public Works Management. Approval for this work shall be obtained
from the Department of Environmental and Public Works Management prior to
issuance of the building permits.
22. Vehicles
hauling dirt or other construction debris from the site shall cover any open
load with a tarpaulin or other secure covering to minimize dust emissions.
23. Street
trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as required in a manner
consistent with the City's Tree Code (Ord. 1242 CCS), per the specifications of
the Community and Cultural Services Department and the Department of
Environmental and Public Works Management.
No street tree shall be removed without the approval of the Community
and Cultural Services Department.
24. A
construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by the applicant for
approval by the Department of Environmental and Public Works Management prior
to issuance of a building permit. The
approved mitigation plan shall be posted on the site for the duration of the
project construction and shall be produced upon request. As applicable, this plan shall 1) Specify
the names, addresses, telephone numbers and business license numbers of all
contractors and subcontractors as well as the developer and architect; 2)
Describe how demolition of any existing structures is to be accomplished; 3)
Indicate where any cranes are to be located for erection/construction; 4)
Describe how much of the public street, alleyway, or sidewalk is proposed to be
used in conjunction with construction; 5) Set forth the extent and nature of
any pile-driving operations; 6) Describe the length and number of any tiebacks
which must extend under the property of other persons; 7) Specify the nature
and extent of any dewatering and its effect on any adjacent buildings; 8) Describe
anticipated construction-related truck routes, number of truck trips, hours of
hauling and parking location; 9) Specify the nature and extent of any
helicopter hauling; 10) State whether any construction activity beyond normally
permitted hours is proposed; 11) Describe any proposed construction noise
mitigation measures; 12) Describe construction-period security measures
including any fencing, lighting, and security personnel; 13) Provide a drainage
plan; 14) Provide a construction-period parking plan which shall minimize use
of public streets for parking; 15) List a designated on-site construction
manager.
25. Developer
shall prepare a notice, subject to the review by the Director of Planning and
Community Development, that lists all construction mitigation requirements,
permitted hours of construction, and identifies a contact person at City Hall
as well as the developer who will respond to complaints related to the proposed
construction. The notice shall be mailed
to property owners and residents within a 200-foot radius from the subject site
at least five (5) days prior to the start of construction.
26. A
sign shall be posted on the property in a manner consistent with the public
hearing sign requirements, which shall identify the address and phone number of
the owner and/or applicant for the purposes of responding to questions and
complaints during the construction period.
Said sign shall also indicate the hours of permissible construction
work.
27. A
copy of these conditions shall be posted in an easily visible and accessible
location at all times during construction at the project site. The pages shall be laminated or otherwise
protected to ensure durability of the copy.
Environmental Mitigation
28. Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures are
required on all new development and remodeling where plumbing is to be
added. (Maximum 1.6-gallon toilets and
1.0-gallon urinals and low flow showerhead.)
29. Parking
areas and structures and other facilities generating wastewater with
significant oil and grease content are required to pretreat these wastes before
discharging to the City sewer or storm drain system. Pretreatment will require that a clarifier or oil/water separator
be installed and maintained on site. In
cases where settleable solids are present (or expected) in greater amounts than
floatable oil and grease, a clarifier unit will be required. In cases where the opposite waste
characteristics are present, an oil/water separator with automatic oil draw-off
will be required instead. The General Services
Department will set specific requirements.
Building Permit plans shall show the required installation.
Miscellaneous DCP Conditions
30. The
building address shall be painted on the roof of the building and shall measure
four feet by eight feet (32 square feet).
31. If
any archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation or construction,
work in the affected area shall be suspended and a recognized specialist shall
be contacted to conduct a survey of the affected area at project's owner's
expense. A determination shall then be
made by the Director of Planning to determine the significance of the survey
findings and appropriate actions and requirements, if any, to address such
findings.
32. Street
and/or alley lighting shall be provided on public rights of way adjacent to the
project if and as needed per the specifications and with the approval of the
Department of Environmental and Public Works.
33. Any
lofts or mezzanines shall not exceed 99 square feet unless appropriate required
parking is supplied. Such areas shall
also not exceed 33.3% of the room below unless compliance with the district's
limits on number of stories can be maintained.
34. No
fence, gate, or wall within the required front yard setback, inclusive of any
subterranean garage slab and fencing, gate, or railing on top thereof, shall
exceed a height of 42" above actual grade of the property. No wall shall be permitted along the front
of the property.
35. A
security gate shall be provided across the opening to the subterranean
garage. If any guest parking space is
located in the subterranean garage, the security gate shall be equipped with an
electronic or other system which will open the gate to provide visitors with
vehicular access to the garage without leaving their vehicles. The security gate shall receive approval of
the Police and Fire Departments prior to issuance of a building permit.
36. Mechanical
equipment shall not be located on the side of any building which is adjacent to
a residential building on the adjoining lot.
Roof locations may be used when the mechanical equipment is installed
within a sound rated parapet enclosure.
37. Final
approval of any mechanical equipment installation will require a noise test in
compliance with SMMC Section 4.12.040.
Equipment for the test shall be provided by the owner or contractor and
the test shall be conducted by the owner or contractor. A copy of the noise test results on
mechanical equipment shall be submitted to the Community Noise Officer for
review to ensure that noise levels do not exceed maximum allowable levels for
the applicable noise zone.
38. Final
building plans submitted for approval of a building permit shall include on the
plans a list of all permanent mechanical equipment to be placed indoors which
may be heard outdoors.
Validity
of Permits
39. In
the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval
of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy
shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied.
40. Within
ten days of City Planning Division transmittal of the Statement of Official
Action, project applicant shall sign and return a copy of the Statement of
Official Action prepared by the Planning Division, agreeing to the conditions
of approval and acknowledging that failure to comply with such conditions shall
constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval. By signing same, applicant shall not thereby
waive any legal rights applicant may possess regarding said conditions. The signed Statement shall be returned to
the Planning Division. Failure to
comply with this condition shall constitute grounds for potential permit
revocation.
41. This
shall become effective immediately. The
approval of this permit shall expire if the rights granted are not exercised
within two years from the permit’s effective date. Exercise of rights shall mean issuance of a building permit to
commence construction. However, the permit
shall also expire if the building permit expires, if final inspection is not
completed or a Certificate of Occupancy is not issued within the time periods
specified in SMMC Section 8.08.060. One
one-year extension may be permitted if approved by the Director of
Planning. Applicant is on notice that
time extensions may not be granted if development standards relevant to the
project have changed since project approval.
42. Within
thirty (30) days after final approval of the project, a sign shall be posted on
site stating the date and nature of the approval. The sign shall be posted in accordance with the Zoning
Administrator guidelines and shall remain in place until a building permit is
issued for the project. The sign shall
be removed promptly when a building permit is issued for the project or upon
expiration of the Conditional Use Permit.
Special Conditions
43. Pursuant
to Ordinance 1589 (CCS), prior to receipt of the final permit necessary to
demolish, convert, or otherwise remove a controlled rental unit(s) from the
housing market, the owner of the property shall first secure a removal permit
under Section 1803(t), an exemption determination, an approval of a vested
rights claim from the Rent Control Board, or have withdrawn the controlled
rental unit(s) pursuant to the provisions of the Ellis Act.
44. Pursuant
to Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter 9.56, the project is subject to
the City's Affordable Housing Production Program which requires a ten-unit
development to provide either one very low cost affordable unit or two low cost
affordable units on-site (SMMC Section 9.56.050), provide the affordable units
off-site (SMMC Section 9.56.060), pay an affordable housing fee (SMMC Section
9.56.070), or acquire land for affordable housing (SMMC Section 9.56.080). The developer has elected to satisfy the
Affordable Housing Production requirement through payment of an affordable
housing fee. The project's affordable
housing fee is based on the following formula:
Floor Area (as defined by SMMC Section 9.04.02.030.315) x
$11.01. The
project’s floor area as shown on the plans dated September 13, 2002, is
18,498.24 square feet. The project’s
affordable housing fee based on this floor area would be $ 203,665.62. The fee will be recalculated prior to
payment based on the actual building floor area of the project as
constructed. The fee must be paid in
full prior to the City granting any approval for the occupancy of the project.
TENTATIVE
PARCEL/TRACT MAP CONDITIONS
1. All
off site improvements required by the City Engineer shall be installed. Plans and specifications for off site
improvements shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by
the City Engineer.
2. A
subdivision improvement agreement for all off site improvements required by the
City Engineer shall be prepared and a performance bond posted through the City
Attorney's office.
3. The
tentative map shall expire 24 months after approval, except as provided in the
provisions of California Government Code Section 66452.6 and Subchapter 9.20.18
of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
During this time period, the final map shall be presented to the City of
Santa Monica for approval. No building
permit for the project will be granted until such time as the final map is
approved by the Santa Monica City Council.
4. In
submitting required materials to the Santa Monica Engineering Division for a
final map, applicant shall provide a copy of the approved Statement of Official
Action.
5. Prior
to approval of the final map, Condominium Association By-Laws (if applicable)
and a Declaration of CC & R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Attorney. The CC & R's shall
contain a non-discrimination clause as presented in Section 9.20.20.020 (SMMC)
and in the case of condominiums, contain such provisions as are required by
Section 9.04.16.01.030(e)(SMMC).
6. The
developer shall provide for payment of a Condominium Tax of $1,000 per saleable
residential unit per the provisions of Section 6.76.010 et seq. of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code.
7. The
form, contents, accompanying data, and filing of the final subdivision map
shall conform to the provisions of Sections 9.20.12.010 through 9.20.08.090
(SMMC) and the Subdivision Map Act. The
required Final Map filing fee shall be paid prior to scheduling of the Final
Map for City Council approval.
8. The
form, contents, accompanying data, and filing of the final parcel map shall
conform to the provisions of Sections 9.20.12.010 through 9.20.12.080 (SMMC)
and the Subdivision Map Act.
9. One
mylar and one blue-line copy of the final map shall be provided to and recorded
with the Los Angeles County Recorder prior to issuance of any building permit
for a condominium project pursuant to Government Code Section 66499.30. Applicant shall also provide the County with
a copy of this Statement of Official Action at the time the required copies of
the map are submitted.
10. A
copy of the recorded map shall be provided to the City Planning Division before
issuance of a Building Permit.
11. Pursuant
to Section 9.20.14.070 (SMMC), if the subdivider or any interested person
disagrees with any action by the Planning Commission with respect to the
tentative map, an appeal or complaint may be filed in writing with the City
Clerk. No appeal or complaint may be
filed after a ten-day period from the Commission's decision on the tentative
map.
Prepared by: Suzanne
Frick, Director
Jay
M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Amanda
Schachter, Principal Planner
Kimberly
Christensen, AICP, Senior Planner
Elizabeth
Bar-El, AICP, Associate Planner
City
Planning Division Planning and
Community Development Department
Attachments: A. Public
Notice
B. Appeal Statement
C.
Planning
Commission staff report dated July 10, 2002
D.
Planning
Commission staff report dated October 2, 2002
E.
Resolution
Adopting Negative Declaration
F.
Negative
Declaration
G.
Project
Plans