Council Mtg: February 25, 2003                                                        Santa Monica, California

 

 

TO:                  Mayor and City Council

 

FROM:            City Staff

 

SUBJECT:     Appeal 02APP-020 of the Planning Commission’s Denial of Conditional Use Permit 02CUP-017 to allow the construction of a two-story, five (5)-unit condominium development.  Applicant/Appellant: 1719 Ocean Inc. Address: 1719 Ocean Front Walk

 

 

INTRODUCTION

This report recommends that the City Council uphold the appeal, and approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow a one-year extension of the rights granted by CUP 99-006 to allow the construction of a 5-unit condominium building at the subject site.  The Planning Commission, at its October 16, 2002 meeting, denied the project.  The appeal statement is contained in Attachment A and the two Planning Commission staff reports are contained in Attachments B and C.

 

BACKGROUND

The applicant/appellant proposes to construct a two-story, 5-unit condominium development with eleven subterranean parking spaces accessed from Marine Terrace.  The Planning Commission originally approved CUP 99-006 on June 9, 1999 and the CUP became effective on June 24, 1999.  The original term of the CUP was for two years (June 24, 2001), however, the project’s rights were not exercised in this timeframe, due in part to delays from an appeal of the Planning Commission approval that was eventually withdrawn.  This delay resulted in a request to approve an administrative extension in accordance with SMMC section 9.04.20.12.060.  The administrative extension was granted allowing an additional year (June 24, 2002) to exercise the rights of CUP 99-006.  To date, the project has not obtained approval from the California Coastal Commission nor has the plan check process been completed.  The applicant reports having presented the project to the Coastal Commission, but has yet to receive approval and the matter is currently in litigation.  Furthermore, the applicant has noted problems with their geotechnical engineer resulting in additional delays.  Although the plan check process is nearly complete, these outstanding issues preclude issuance of a building permit and therefore implementation of the CUP.  For these reasons, the applicant again seeks another one-year extension in accordance with section 9.04.20.12.060.  This extension request was heard by the Planning Commission on October 16, 2002 and was denied.  On October 28, 2002, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s denial based on the reasons listed in the appeal statement contained in Attachment A.

 

DISCUSSION

Project Description

The proposed project involves a request to extend CUP 99-006 by one-year to allow additional time to gain approval from the California Coastal Commission and to secure requisite building permits, and to amend condition of approval number 38 to reflect the revised term of the permit.  CUP 99-006 would allow the construction of a two-story, 30-foot tall, five-unit con­dominium building with an 11 space subterranean parking garage accessed from Marine Terrace.  The floor area for the five units will total 9,924 square feet of livable space.  Each unit will contain two stories with mezzanines located above the first story and bedrooms and baths located on the second story. The floor plans feature an open living room, dining room, and a kitchen along with a half-bath and mezzanine on the first floor.  The second floor features two bedrooms and roof terraces.  

                                                                                                   

Planning Commission Action

On October 16, 2002 the Planning Commission denied CUP 02-017 to allow a one-year extension of the rights granted pursuant to CUP 99-006 that would allow the construction of a five-unit condominium project at 1719 Ocean Front Walk.  The Planning Commission denied the extension request based on the belief that the conditions surrounding the project site have changed since the original approval, that the project’s compatibility with surrounding land uses should be re-analyzed, and that the demolition of the existing structure would potentially result in the loss of a historic resource.  

 

Appeal  

Pursuant to Section 9.04.20.12.060 (b), an extension of the terms of the CUP may be granted as long as there is good cause, and upon consideration of the extent to which the project is consistent with current development standards and policies, whether the project is consistent in principal with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan, conditions surrounding the project site and whether the project will adversely affect public health, safety and general welfare. 

 

The appellant contends that the project is consistent with current development standards and policies, in that in the time period since the project was originally approved, there have been no changes in the pertinent development standards or policies and that the project is still in compliance with the R3R development standards.  The appellant also believes that the project is still consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses and programs specified in the adopted general plan.  To support these claims, the appellant states that the retention of a residential use on the subject site is consistent with Land Use Element policies 1.5.2 and 1.5.8 which seek to conserve the existing mix of residential land uses.  Furthermore, the appellant believes that the proposed project is consistent with the intent of the R3R zoning district, which is to provide a broad range of housing within medium density residential neighborhoods.

 

Analysis

Members of the Planning Commission believed that the existing structure is a potential historic resource. However, staff notes that the existing structure is not listed on the historic resources inventory.  Further, the Landmarks Commission, at its May 13, 2002 hearing, considered the demolition permit but did not take any action to preserve the structure.  Regarding the Commission’s concerns that the conditions surrounding the project site have changed, staff acknowledges that there have been a number of public improvements along Ocean Front Walk that have enhanced pedestrian interaction, that the Le Merigot Hotel is now operational, and that the Sea Castle is occupied.  However, staff does not view these changes as significant enough to determine that the proposed project would not be compatible with the existing neighborhood and surrounding land uses. 

 

Staff believes the project to be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses and programs specified in the adopted General Plan.  Specifically, the project is consistent with Land Use Element policies 1.5.2 and 1.5.8, which seek to preserve the residential mix of residential land uses, and that the project complies with the floor area ratio and number of stories as set forth in policy 1.5.8.  Staff also finds that the project would not adversely affect public health, safety and general welfare in the neighborhood.

 

CEQA ANALYSIS

The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Class 3(b) of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the project involves the construction of not more than six dwelling units in an urbanized area.

 

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 D.

 

BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT

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

 

CONCLUSION

The proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP 02-017) would extend the rights granted by CUP 99-006 until June 24, 2003, one year from the date that the permit was set to expire.  The extension would allow sufficient time to finalize the plan check process required for building permit issuance and additional time to complete California Coastal Commission approval.  The project has not been revised since its original approval except as required by the Architectural Review Board and complies with all applicable development standards.

 

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the City Council take the following action:

1)           Uphold the appeal and approve CUP 02-017 to allow a one-year extension of CUP 99-006 and to amend condition of approval number 38 associated with that prior entitlement, based upon the following findings and subject to the following conditions:

 

EXTENSION FINDINGS

1.                  The applicant has good cause in requesting a one-year extension, in that the applicant is still in the process of obtaining approval from the California Coastal Commission and the necessary building permits to commence construction.  The project has ARB approval, but needs more time to complete the plan check process that is necessary to obtain building permits. 

 

2.                  The project is consistent with current development standards and policies, in that in the time period since the project was originally approved on June 9, 1999 there have been no changes in the pertinent development standards or policies.  The project is still in compliance with the R3R development standards and land use policies for the Oceanfront District. 

 

3.         The project is consistent in principal with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses and programs specified in the adopted general plan, in that the project retains a residential use on the site, consistent with Land Use Element policies 1.5.2 and 1.5.8 which seek to conserve the existing mix of residential land uses.  The project is a multi-family condominium project that complies with the floor area ratio and number of stories (2) as set forth in Policy 1.5.8.  Furthermore, the project conforms to the property development standards and is consistent with the intent and specified land uses of the R3R zoning district, which is to “provide a broad range of housing within medium density residential neighborhoods”.

 

4.         No changes in conditions surrounding the project site have occurred that alters the project’s compatibility with adjacent development or the neighborhood.  The conditions surrounding the project site have not significantly changed since the project’s original approval.  A variety of uses, with varying densities and bulk, and architectural styles are prevalent in the neighborhood.  Due to this variety, the condominium project, which represents a decrease in massing and density on the subject site, is compatible with the general vicinity and will not pose a significant impact upon surrounding land uses nor upon the public health, safety and general welfare in the neighborhood.   

 

5.                  The project will not adversely effect public health, safety and general welfare, in that the subject site is located in an urbanized area adequately served by existing police, fire and public infrastructure.  Additionally, on-site access and parking will be improved in that the proposed condominium project represents a decrease in density from thirteen units to five units and compliance with current parking standards.

 

CONDITION

 

38.       This determination shall not become effective for a period of fourteen days from the date of determination (CUP). If appealed, a final determination is effective on the date the appeal decision is rendered.  Any appeal must be made in the form required by the Zoning Administrator.  The approval of this permit shall expire on June 24, 2003, without exception, if the rights granted are not exercised within this timeframe.  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 two years, or if the rights granted are not exercised within one year following the earliest to occur of the following: issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or, if no certificate of Occupancy is required, the last required final inspection for the new construction. 

 

 

Prepared by:              Suzanne Frick, Director

                                    Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager

                                    Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner

                                    Jonathan R. Lait, AICP, Senior Planner

                                    Bradley J. Misner, AICP, Associate Planner

                                    City Planning Division Planning and Community Development Department

 

 

Attachments:              A.  Appeal Statement (see below for attachments)

                                    B.  Planning Commission staff report dated June 9, 1999

C.    Planning Commission staff report dated October 16, 2002

D.    Public Notice

E.     Planning Commission Minutes, dated 10/16/02

F.     Architectural Plans

 

 

ATTACHMENT A

 

APPEAL STATEMENT

 

Electronic version of attachment is not available for review.  Document is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office and the Libraries.

 

ATTACHMENT B

 

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED JUNE 9, 1999

 

Planning Commission Mtg: June 9, 1999

 

TO:                  The Honorable Planning Commission

 

FROM:            Planning Staff

 

SUBJECT:     Conditional Use Permit 99-006 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 52838

 

Address:        1719 Ocean Front Walk/R3R, Beach Overlay

Applicant:       Howard Laks Associates Architects

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Action:  Application for Conditional Use Permit 99-006 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 52838 to allow the construction of a two-story plus mezzanines, 5-unit condominium development with 11 subterranean parking spaces. As conditioned, the project meets all applicable development standards.

 

Recommendation:  Approval with conditions.

 

Permit Streamlining Expiration Date: Conditional Use Permit 99-006: August 8, 1999

                                                      Vesting Tentative Tract Map 52838: June 1, 1999;

                                               (extension requested by applicant to June 9, 1999.)

 

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

 

The subject property consists of an 80’ x 125’ lot located in the R3R, Medium Density Multiple Family Coastal Residential and the Beach Overlay District.  The site situated at the southern end of a block containing all through lots and is bordered by three right-of-ways: Marine Terrace on the south, Appian Way on the east and Ocean Front Walk on the west.  The subject property contains a 13-unit multi-family structure with a detached one-story garage in the rear. The units are vacant. The garage and seven parking spaces are accessed directly from Appian Way.

 

The adjacent property to the north contains a small one-story commercial shop for rental bike and skates that caters to pedestrian visitors along Ocean Front Walk.  Open space associated with the Loew’s Hotel is located adjacent to the north between the commercial use and Pacific Terrace.  To the south (R3R), the 178-unit Sea Castle apartment project is under construction.  On the southeast corner of Marine Terrace and Appian Way (RVC), the Le Merigot Hotel is under construction.  South of the Le Merigot Hotel, an 11-unit condominium project is proposed on a vacant parcel.  The Loew’s Hotel is located directly east of the subject property, across Appian Way.  The beach is located directly west of the property

 

Zoning District:                R3R/Medium Density Multiple Family Coastal Residential District Beach Overly District 

Land Use District:           Medium Density Housing

 

Parcel Area:                    80.11' x 125' = 10,013.75 sq. ft.       

 

 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 

Proposed is the construction of a two-story, 30'-0" tall, five-unit con­dominium building with an 11 space subterranean parking garage accessed from Marine Terrace.  The floor area for the five units will total 9,924 square feet of livable space.  Each unit will contain two stories with mezzanines located above the first story and bedrooms and baths located on the second story. The floor plans feature an open living room, dining room, and a kitchen along with a half-bath and mezzanine on the first floor.  The second floor features two bedrooms and roof terraces.

 

MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE

 

The proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Municipal Code and the General Plan as shown in Attachment A.

 

CEQA STATUS

 

The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Class 3(b) of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the project involves the construction of not more than six dwelling units in an urbanized area.

 

RENT CONTROL STATUS

 

The property contains a multi-family structure with 13 rent controlled units.  The rent control status form dated 2/14/99 states that the 13 units are pending an Ellis Application.  The 13 units are vacant. 

 

FEES

 

The project is subject to:

·        Parks and Recreation Facilities Tax of $200 per unit for a total of $1,000.00.

·        Condominium Facilities Tax of $1,000 per saleable unit for a total tax of $5,000.00.

·        Inclusionary fee of $7.13 per square foot of floor area (9,924 SF) for a total $70,758.12

 

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

 

Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.20.080, 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 City Planning 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 9.04.20.22.050, 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 and published in The Argonaut at least ten con­secutive calendar days prior to the hearing.  A copy of the notice is con­tained in Attachment B.

 

ANALYSIS

Background

 

The subject property contains a multifamily building.  The front section of the building is vacant and consists of seven dwelling units ranging from 1 to 3 bedrooms.  The rear portion of the building is also vacant and contains six single units. The property is pending a reoccupancy permit to allow one owner and his relatives to temporarily dwell in four of the thirteen units.

 

The structure was built in 1927 and added to in 1940, but is not listed on the Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory.  Since the structure is more than 50 years old, the Demolition Permit must be reviewed by the Landmarks Commission.  The building is pending an Ellis Application to remove thirteen dwelling units from Santa Monica Rent Control via the Ellis Act and cannot be demolished without an approved replacement project in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.10.16.010(a)(2).

 

There are three mature Washingtonia Robusta trees on site that will be retained.  One tree, not identified on the plans, is not of mature size and will be removed. 

 

Project Description

 

Proposed is the construction of a modern two-story, 30’ tall, five-unit condominium project. Four of the condominiums will be attached and sited on the land in an “L” formation.  The fifth rear unit will be detached.  The placement of the fifth unit and the slightly angular siting of the four attached units will create open space in an interior courtyard with a curved walkway.  All of front entrances to the condominium will be oriented toward the courtyard. Each condominium is designed in a townhouse style with living and kitchen area on the first floor, bedrooms located on the second floor and large terraces on the roof.  Mezzanines overlooking the living room and kitchen area are proposed in each unit. The following interior layouts are proposed:

 

·     Units 1, 2, and 5:     First floor: large open area with a living and dining room, kitchen, ½ bath and mezzanine. Second floor: 2 bedrooms and 2 full baths.

·     Units 3, and 4:         First floor: large open area with a living and family room, kitchen, ½ bath and mezzanine Second floor: 2 bedrooms and 2 full baths. 

            

             The bedrooms located in Units 3 and 4 will be located on split-levels.  The master bedroom in each of these units will be located a few stairs above the second bedroom and will have direct access to a small roof terrace located above the second bedroom.  Each unit will have a large terrace on their main roof.  All of the units will have direct interior access to the subterranean garage through a set of stairs located in the foyers.  Mechanical rooms will be provided in the subterranean garage and on the roofs, screened by parapet enclosures.

 

Private Open Space and Site Landscaping

 

The private open space proposed exceeds the area required by Code. The integration of private ground level space and two levels of terraces will provide well over 100 square feet of private open space for each unit.  Eighty-four percent of the required front yard will be landscaped, which exceeds the 50% required by Code.  Fifty-eight percent of the south side yard and 72% of the north side yard will be landscaped. Both exceed the 50% required by Code.   In addition, 4-foot unexcavated sideyards will be provided along the north and south property lines.  Detailed landscaping plans will be subject to Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval.   

    

Parking and Circulation

 

Two parking spaces are provided for each unit within the subterranean garage which is accessed from Marine Terrace.  The proposed project includes one guest space in addition to the ten (10) required parking spaces for a total of 11 spaces. The parking spaces will be grouped in two’s and separated by individual mechanical rooms. Pedestrian access to the subterranean parking garage is provided by private stairwells from the individual units and through secondary stairs accessed from the front yard along Appian Way and the side yard along Marine Terrace.  The proposed side stairwell is not permitted within the 4’ unexcavated side yard and will need to be relocated.  The applicant has been advised to relocate the stairs and is in full agreement.  Staff has included a condition to address this issue prior to Architectural Review Board submittal (Condition #35).  The Parking and Traffic Division approved the size and configuration of the parking stalls on May 24, 1999.

 

Affordable Housing Obligation

 

The project is subject to the City's Affordable Housing Production Program which requires a 5-unit development to comply with one of the following:

 

1)     provide either one very low income affordable unit or one low income affordable unit on-site (Section 9.56.050);

2)     provide the affordable unit(s) off-site (Section 9.56.060);

3)     pay an affordable housing fee (Section 9.56.070);

4)     or acquire land for affordable housing (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, calculated based on a 9,924 square foot project would be $70,758.12.  ($7.13 x 9,924 s.f.). This fee will be recalculated prior to payment based on the actual floor area of the project as constructed.  The housing fee must be paid prior to occupancy.

 

Neighborhood Compatibility

 

The proposed 5-unit condominium project is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of density and use. The maximum density permitted by right on the subject property is eight units.  The surrounding uses in the neighborhood include a mix of apartment buildings, single family houses, multi-story hotels and beach uses located in the R3R, R3, RVC and BPD Districts. Hotels and apartments line the east side of Appian Way.  A few Craftsman style and older single and multifamily structures exist just east of the developments between Appian Way and Ocean Avenue on Seaview Terrace.  The proposed design and density of the project will blend well with the various uses and mix of architectural styles in the area and will reduce the intensity of use and massing on the property. Parking that complies with current code will be provided, lessening any vehicle impact in the area. The project will also have ample private open space, landscaping and articulation.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

The proposed condominium, as conditioned, complies with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. The proposed design and use is compatible with the existing development in the general area.  It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project with the following findings and conditions:

 

TENTATIVE 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 con­forms to the provisions of the R3R, Medium Density Multiple Family Coastal Residential District, development standards of the Zoning Ordinance and the Medium Density Housing 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.

 

3.         The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of develop­ment, in that a 10,013.75 square foot lot in the R3R District can accommodate up to 8 units and that the 9880 square foot project represents a .99 floor area ratio (FAR), which is just under the maximum 1.0 FAR permitted for the site.

 

4.         The design of the five-unit condominium 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 five-unit condominium project will not cause serious public health problems, in that the proposed development com­plies with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan.

 

6.         The design of the five-unit condominium project will not con­flict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed subdivision, in that no such easements exist on the subject site and the property has vehicular and pedestrian access from Marine Terrace.

 

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS

 

1.         The proposed use is one conditionally permitted within the subject dis­trict and complies with all of the applicable provisions of the "City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance", in that the proposed condominium complies with the R3R District Develop­ment Standards of the Zoning Ordinance and the Medium Density Housing Multi-family Residential Section of the Land Use Element of the General Plan.

 

2.         The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located, in that the 5-unit project is consistent with the medium density district and proposes to replace an existing nonconforming 13-unit structure.  The design will be harmonious with the various multi-family, hotels, and commercial uses in the surrounding areas including the 8-story Seacastle Apartments to the south, the one story commercial use to the north, open space associated with the Loew’s Hotel to the east, and the beach area to the west and the mix of older, low scale, residential uses.

 

3.         The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed, in that the property is currently developed for residential purposes and has all necessary public improvements and ac­cess to utilities.

 

4.         The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses presently on the subject parcel if the present land uses are to remain, in that all existing on-site uses are to be removed and the proposed use is consistent with the previous residential use of the site.

 

5.         The proposed use is be compatible with existing and permissible land uses within the district and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located, in that the two story 5-unit project will provide a lower density residential use along Ocean Front Walk, and is compatible with the 8-story residential use to the south (Seacastle Apartments), the one story commercial use to the north, the Loew’s Hotel open space to the east, the beach open space to the west as well as with the mix of older, low scale, residential uses in the area.  In addition, the proposed use will comply with all applicable Code requirements.

 

6.         There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utili­ties and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety, in that the proposed develop­ment is an infill of urban land adequately served by existing infrastructure.

 

7.         Public access to the proposed use will be adequate, in that the site is adequately served by existing streets and alleys.

 

8.         The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood, in that all setbacks and height requirements for the R3R District have been met and the building design is of a scale compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.  Additionally, lot coverage complies with Code requirements and landscaping exceeds the minimum required by Code.

 

9.         The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, in that the area is defined as a multi-family residential area in the Land Use Element of the General Plan.  Specifically, the project meets Land Use Element Policy 1.10.1, which encourages the development of new housing in all existing residential districts, while still protecting the character and scale of neighborhoods.

 

10.             The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare, in that the project is an appropriate and compatible use in the R3R District and com­plies with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan.

 

11.             The proposed use conforms precisely to the applicable performance stan­dards contained in Subchapter 9.04.12 and special conditions outlined in Subchapter 9.04.14 of the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance, in that the condominium development does not contain any of the special features described in the aforementioned Subchapters and, therefore, the Performance Standards and Special Con­ditions relating to those features do not apply to the development.

 

12.       The proposed use will not result in an over‑concentration of such uses in the immediate vicinity, in that the area is defined as a multi-family residential district, and the project complies with the unit per acre density limitations set in the Land Use Element of the General Plan.

 

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS

 

Plans

 

1.         This approval is for those plans dated May 21, 1999; 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 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.

 

1.                  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

 

2.                  The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attentions to the articulation and scale of the project to ensure the design is compatible with surrounding properties and neighborhood.

 

3.                  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.

 

4.                  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.

 

5.                  Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, and trash enclosures shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Board.

 

6.                  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.

 

7.                  Construction period signage shall be subject to the approval of the Architectural Review Board.

 

8.                  Landscaping plans shall comply with Part 9.04.10.04 (Landscaping Stan­dards) of the Zoning Ordinance including use of water-conserving land­scaping materials, landscape maintenance and other standards contained in that Part.

 

9.                  Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall screened in accordance with SMMC Section 9.04.10.02.130-9.04.10.02.151.  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 (unless located within a mechanical room).

 

10.             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.

 

11.             The location of mechanical units shall be sited on a preliminary plan prior to filing an ARB application so the Board may review, if necessary, any screening that may be required.

 

Fees

 

12.             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

 

13.             The existing site shall be maintained and secured by 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.  The lot shall be kept clear of all trash, weeds, etc.

 

Construction

 

14.             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.

 

15.             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.

 

16.             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.

 

17.             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.

 

18.             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.

 

19.             The property owner shall insure any graffiti on the site is promptly removed through compliance with the City's graffiti removal program.

 

20.             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.

 

21.             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

 

22.             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 shower head.)

 

23.             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 Environmental and Public Works Management Department will set specific requirements.  Building Permit plans shall show the required installation. 

 

Miscellaneous CUP Conditions

 

24.             The building address shall be painted on the roof of the building and shall measure four feet by eight feet (32 square feet)

 

25.             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. 

 

26.             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 Management.

 

27.             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.

 

28.             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.

 

29.             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 soundrated parapet enclosure.

 

30.             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.

 

31.             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.

 

35.       As per S.M.M.C. Section 9.04.10.02.170, with the exception of driveways necessary to provide access to parking, no subterranean parking structures, including stairs to such structures shall be located in any required unexcavated area.  The proposed side stairwell as shown on plans dated 5/24/99 must be relocated to comply with Code prior to Architectural Review Board submittal.

 

Validity of Permits

 

36.       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.

 

37.       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 City 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 City Planning Division.  Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute grounds for potential permit revocation.

 

38.       This determination shall not become effective for a period of fourteen days from the date of determination (CUP) and ten days from the date of determination (VTTM). If appealed, a final determination is effective on the date the appeal decision is rendered.  Any appeal must be made in the form required by the Zoning Administrator.  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 two years, or if the rights granted are not exercised within one year following the earliest to occur of the following: issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or, if no certificate of Occupancy is required, the last required final inspection for the new construction.  A 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.

 

 

32.             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.

 

Affordable Housing Obligation

 

33.             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 five-unit development to provide either one very low income affordable units or one low income 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),  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 bases on the following formula:

 

Floor Area (as defined by SMMC Section 9.04.02.030.315) x $7.13. The project’s floor area as shown on the plans dated May 24, 1999 is 9,924 square feet.  The project’s affordable housing fee based on this floor area would be $70,758.12.  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 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 Sections 9.04.16.030(e) 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 9.04.16.030(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 Planning and Zoning 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: Jean M. Moore, Associate Planner

 

Attachments:

 

A.      Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance

B.      Notice of Public Hearing

C.            Radius and Location Map

D.            Photographs of Site and Surrounding Properties

E.             Vesting Tentative Tract Map 52838

F.             Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations

ATTACHMENT C

 

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED OCTOBER 16, 2002

 

              Santa Monica, California

Planning Commission Mtg: October 16, 2002

 

TO:                  The Honorable Planning Commission

 

FROM:            Planning Staff

 

SUBJECT:     Conditional Use Permit 02-017 To Allow a One-Year Extension of a Previously Approved Conditional Use Permit (99CUP006) for a 5-Unit Development. 

 

Address:        1719 Ocean Front Walk/R3R, Beach Overlay

Applicant:       1719 Ocean Inc.

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Action:  Application for Conditional Use Permit 02-017 to approve a one-year extension of Conditional Use Permit 99-006 and to amend condition of approval number 38 associated with that prior entitlement. 

 

Recommendation:  Approval with conditions.

 

Permit Streamlining Expiration Date: October 30, 2002 (without extension)

                                                           

 

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

 

The subject property consists of an 80’ x 125’ lot located in the R3R, Multiple Family Coastal District and Beach Overlay Districts.  The site is located at the southern end of a block containing all through lots and is bordered by three public right-of-ways: Marine Terrace on the south, Appian Way on the east and Ocean Front Walk on the west.  The subject property contains a 13-unit multi-family structure with a detached one-story garage in the rear. The units are vacant and will be demolished as part of the project.

 

The adjacent property to the north contains a small one-story business offering bike and skate rentals that cater to pedestrian visitors along Ocean Front Walk.  Open space associated with the Loew’s Hotel is located adjacent to the north between the commercial use and Pacific Terrace.  To the south (R3R), is the 178-unit Sea Castle apartment project. On the southeast corner of Marine Terrace and Appian Way (RVC) is the Le Merigot Hotel. The Loew’s Hotel is located directly east of the subject property, across Appian Way.  The beach is located directly west of the property.

 

Zoning District:                R3R/ Medium Density Multiple Family Coastal Residential District & Beach Overly District 

Land Use District:           Ocean Front District

Parcel Area:                    80.11' x 125' = 10,013.75 sq. ft.       

 

 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 

The proposed project involves a request to extend CUP 99-006 by one-year to allow additional time to gain approval from the California Coastal Commission and to secure requisite building permits, and to amend condition of approval number 38 to reflect the revised term of the permit.  CUP 99-006 was approved on June 9, 1999 allowing the construction of a two-story, 30-foot tall, five-unit con­dominium building with an 11 space subterranean parking garage accessed from Marine Terrace.  The floor area for the five units will total 9,924 square feet of livable space.  Each unit will contain two stories with mezzanines located above the first story and bedrooms and baths located on the second story. The floor plans feature an open living room, dining room, and a kitchen along with a half-bath and mezzanine on the first floor.  The second floor features two bedrooms and roof terraces.  

 

CEQA STATUS

 

The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Class 3(b) of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the project involves the construction of not more than six dwelling units in an urbanized area.

 

RENT CONTROL STATUS

 

The property has been withdrawn from the residential rental market pursuant to the Ellis Act.  However, at the time of this report the Rent Control Board is investigating whether or not the property owner is in violation of the Ellis Act conditions because of alleged occupancy of some of the units.

 

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

 

Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.20.080 and in accordance with the posting requirements set forth by the Zoning Administrator, prior to application filing the applicant posted a sign on the property regarding the subject application.  At least 4 weeks prior to the public hearing date, the applicant submitted a photograph to verify the site posting and to demonstrate that the sign provides 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 City Planning Division phone number.  A copy of the site posting photograph is contained in Attachment B.  It is the applicant's responsibility to update the hearing date if it is changed after posting.

 

In addition, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, 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 C.

 

The applicant was notified by phone and writing of the subject hearing date on September 10, 2002 and September 25, 2002, respectively.

 

ANALYSIS

 

Background

 

The Planning Commission approved this project on June 9,1999, the entitlements granted in CUP 99-006 became effective on June 24, 1999.  The original term of the CUP was for two years (June 24, 2001), however, the project’s rights were not exercised in this timeframe, due in part to delays from an appeal of the Planning Commission approval that was eventually withdrawn.  This delay resulted in a request to approve an administrative extension in accordance with SMMC section 9.04.20.12.060.  The administrative extension was granted allowing an additional year (June 24, 2002) to exercise the rights of CUP 99-006.  To date, the project has not obtained approval from the California Coastal Commission nor has the plan check process been completed.  The applicant reports having presented the project to the Coastal Commission, but has yet to receive approval.  Furthermore, the applicant has noted problems with their geotechnical engineer resulting in additional delays.  Although the plan check process is nearly complete, these outstanding issues preclude issuance of a building permit and therefore implementation of the CUP.  For these reasons the applicant again seeks another one-year extension in accordance with section 9.04.20.12.060, which allows the Planning Commission to grant any further extensions if such request is made one-month prior to the permit’s expiration.  The applicant applied for this extension on May 24, 2002, one-month prior to the permit expiration.

 

The Architectural Review Board (ARB 01-385) approval for the project was received on April 1, 2002.  The Board required design modifications, which have been incorporated on the plans included in the packet.

 

Extension Request

 

CUP 99-006 was approved on June 9, 1999 permitting a two-story plus mezzanine, five-unit condominium project with eleven subterranean parking spaces.  The rights granted by CUP 99-006 were valid for two-years, however, the applicant was not able to exercise these rights within the two-year timeframe.  As a result a one-year administrative extension was requested and received on the basis that the pertinent development standards had not changed and that the conditions of approval were still valid.  However, the administrative extension has also expired.  Prior to expiration, the applicant filed the subject CUP application requesting an additional one-year extension pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code 9.04.20.12.060 (b).  The provisions of this section allow the Planning Commission to permit further extensions as long as the request is filed at least one-month prior to the CUP expiration date and as long as the extension is processed in the same manner as a new CUP.  Furthermore, the Planning Commission may grant the extension based upon good cause and may consider the extent to which the project is consistent with current development standards and policies, whether the project is consistent in principal with goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan, conditions surrounding the project site and whether the project will adversely affect public health, safety, and general welfare.

 

In accordance with the provisions of this section, the project applicant has filed the extension request one-month prior to the CUP expiration date and has filed a new CUP application.  Regarding the remainder of the provisions, staff has determined that the requested time extension is made with good cause because the project applicant was delayed from applying for Architectural Review Board approval and has been dutifully processing the project in accordance with the City’s development process but has not received approval from the California Coastal Commission nor completed the plan check process.  California Coastal Commission approval has been delayed due to the Commission’s desire to see a visitor-serving commercial development in-lieu of the proposed residential development and the plan check process has been delayed due to faulty geotechnical reports prepared by the applicant’s geotechnical consultant.  The project, however, is still in compliance with the property development standards of the R3R district because these standards have not changed since the Planning Commission approved the condominium in 1999.  The project’s height, bulk, and setbacks have not changed, with the exception of minor changes undertaken to meet Architectural Review Board conditions. 

 

The process to approve a condominium project has changed, however, from a CUP process to the current Design Compatibility Permit (DCP) process, which is based, in part, on evaluation of the project’s compatibility with surrounding sites and the neighborhood.  In June of 1999, the Planning Commission did undertake this evaluation in the context of the CUP request and the conclusions regarding this issue remain the same.  This application does not involve any changes to the design of the structure.  The original staff report and the neighborhood compatibility analysis is included as Attachment A.  Furthermore, the resulting process change (CUP to DCP) has not altered the project’s compliance with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan. The project complies with all aspects of the General Plan in that it conforms to the property development standards and is consistent with the intent and specified land uses of the R3R district.

 

Concerning the physical conditions surrounding the project site and potential adverse impacts which affect public health, safety and general welfare, staff has determined that the conditions have not significantly changed since the project’s original approval.  A variety of uses, with varying densities and bulk, and architectural styles are prevalent in the neighborhood.  Due to this variety, the condominium project, which represents a decrease in mass and density on the subject site, will not pose a significant impact upon surrounding land uses nor upon the public health, safety and general welfare in the immediate vicinity.  Lastly, there are no proposed changes regarding additional aspects of development such as the affordable housing obligation.  The developer has elected to satisfy the Affordable Housing Production requirement through payment of an affordable housing fee. 

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed project will extend the rights granted by CUP 99-006 until June 24, 2003, one year from the date that the permit was set to expire.  The extension is requested to allow additional time to obtain approval from the California Coastal Commission and required building permits.  The project has not been revised except as required by the Architectural Review Board, since its approval on June 9, 1999 and complies with all applicable development standards.  Furthermore, in the time since the project’s original approval there have been no changes to the development standards of the R3R zoning district.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 02-017, permitting a one-year extension of the rights granted pursuant to Conditional Use Permit 99-006 and modify Condition #38, based upon the following findings and subject to the following conditions. 

 

EXTENSION FINDINGS

 

1.                  The applicant has good cause in requesting a one-year extension, in that the applicant is still in the process of obtaining approval from the California Coastal Commission and the necessary building permits to commence construction.  The project has ARB approval, but needs more time to complete the plan check process that is necessary to obtain building permits. 

 

2.         The project is consistent with current development standards and policies, in that in the time period since the project was originally approved on June 9, 1999 there have been no changes in the pertinent development standards or policies.  The project is still in compliance with the R3R development standards and land use policies for the Oceanfront District. 

 

3.         The project is consistent in principal with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses and programs specified in the adopted general plan, in that the project retains a residential use on the site, consistent with Land Use Element policies 1.5.2 and 1.5.8 which seek to conserve the existing mix of residential land uses.  The project is a multi-family condominium project that complies with the floor area ratio and number of stories (2) as set forth in Policy 1.5.8.  Furthermore, the project conforms to the property development standards and is consistent with the intent and specified land uses of the R3R zoning district, which is to “provide a broad range of housing within medium density residential neighborhoods”.

 

4.         No changes in conditions surrounding the project site have occurred that alters the project’s compatibility with adjacent development or the neighborhood.  The conditions surrounding the project site have not significantly changed since the project’s original approval.  A variety of uses, with varying densities and bulk, and architectural styles are prevalent in the neighborhood.  Due to this variety, the condominium project, which represents a decrease in massing and density on the subject site, is compatible with the general vicinity and will not pose a significant impact upon surrounding land uses nor upon the public health, safety and general welfare in the neighborhood.   

 

6.                  The project will not adversely effect public health, safety and general welfare, in that the subject site is located in an urbanized area adequately served by existing police, fire and public infrastructure.  Additionally, on-site access and parking will be improved in that the proposed condominium project represents a decrease in density from thirteen units to five units and compliance with current parking standards.

 

CONDITIONS

 

38.       This determination shall not become effective for a period of fourteen days from the date of determination (CUP). If appealed, a final determination is effective on the date the appeal decision is rendered.  Any appeal must be made in the form required by the Zoning Administrator.  The approval of this permit shall expire on June 24, 2003, without exception, if the rights granted are not exercised within this timeframe.  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 two years, or if the rights granted are not exercised within one year following the earliest to occur of the following: issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or, if no certificate of Occupancy is required, the last required final inspection for the new construction. 

 

 

 

Prepared by: Bradley J. Misner, AICP, Associate Planner

 

Attachments:

 

A.       Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 9, 1999

B.       Notice of Public Hearing

G.             Radius and Location Map

H.              Photographs of Site and Surrounding Properties

I.                 Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations

ATTACHMENT D

 

PUBLIC NOTICE

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING

BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL

 

SUBJECT:        Appeal 02-020

1719 Ocean Front Walk

APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Michael Rahimi

PROPERTY OWNER: 1719 Ocean Inc.

 

A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request:

 

Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a Conditional Use Permit 02-017 to allow an extension of a previously approved Conditional Use Permit (99CUP006) for a 5-Unit condominium development. (Planner: Bradley J. Misner, AICP)

 

DATE/TIME:      TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2003, AT 6:45 p.m.

 

LOCATION:       City Council Chambers, Room 212, Santa Monica City Hall

                        1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California

 

HOW TO COMMENT

The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the City Council public hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the City Council at the meeting.

 

Address your letters to:              City Clerk

                                                Re: 02APP-020

                                                1685 Main Street, Room 102

                                                Santa Monica, CA 90401

 

MORE INFORMATION

If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project file, please contact Bradley J. Misner, AICP, at (310) 458-8341, or by e-mail at brad-misner@santa-monica.org. The Zoning Ordinance is available at the Planning Counter during business hours and on the City’s web site at www.santa-monica.org.

 

The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations, please contact (310) 458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance. All written materials are available in alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 serve City Hall.

 

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.

 

ESPAÑOL

Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica.  Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la División de Planificación al número (310) 458-8341.

 

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

 

__________________________

JAY M. TREVINO, AICP

Planning Manager

F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\NOTICES\02APP020.doc

ATTACHMENT E

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, DATED 10/16/02

M I N U T E S

 

 REGULAR MEETING OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION

 OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

 

 

WEDNESDAY, October 16, 2002                                               CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS

7:00 P.M.                                                                                                  ROOM 213, CITY HALL

                                                                             

1.         CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:14 a.m.

 

2.         PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Brown led the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

3.         ROLL CALL:      Present:   Barbara Brown

                                                            Darrell Clarke, Chairperson

                                                            Arlene Hopkins

                                                            Jay P. Johnson

                                                            Kelly Olsen

                                          Absent:     Julie Lopez Dad

                                                            Geraldine Moyle

 

                                  Also Present:   Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP, Associate Planner

                                                            Kimberly Christensen, AICP, Senior Planner

                                                            Lucy Dyke, Transportation Planning Manager

                                                            Kyle Ferstead, Commission Secretary

                                                            Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning / PCD

                                                            Jonathan Lait, AICP, Senior Planner

                                                            Bradley J. Misner, AICP, Associate Planner

                                                             Beth Rolandson, AICP, Sr. Transportation Planner

                                                            Bill Rodrigues, AICP, Associate Planner

                                                            Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney

                                                            Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner

                                                            Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager

9-B.     Conditional Use Permit 02-017, 1719 Ocean Front Walk. Application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a one-year extension of the rights granted pursuant to CUP 99-006 and to amend condition of approval number 38 associated with CUP 99-006.  CUP 99-006 was approved on June 9, 1999 permitting the construction of a two-story plus mezzanine, five-unit condominium project with eleven parking spaces in a subterranean parking garage.  The proposed CUP extension would allow the rights of CUP 99-017 to remain valid until June 24, 2003. [Planner: Bradley J. Misner, AICP] APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: 1719 Ocean Inc.

 

The Commission began this item by making their ex parte disclosures for this project. Commissioner Hopkins disclosed that she had received a telephone call regarding the project and an e-mail which she had forwarded to all the Commissioners. Chair Clarke disclosed that he was present, as a member of the public, when the Commission originally approved this project in 1999. There were no other disclosures made.

 

Associate Planner Bradley Misner gave the staff report.

 

Commissioner Olsen asked counsel if the findings for an extension are in the Code. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum answered in the affirmative and added that the Commission may grant an extension for good cause.

 

The applicant’s representative, Rosario Perry, was present to discuss the extension request.

 

Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Perry if the ownership of the property has changed since 1999. Mr. Perry answered in the negative.

 

Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Perry if the Landmarks Commission has reviewed the buildings currently on the site. Mr. Perry stated that the Landmarks Commission has not considered this site, but the ARB reviewed the project numerous times.

 

Commissioner Hopkins comments on a letter received on the dais from a woman claiming to be a tenant of the existing Ellised apartment building. Mr. Perry spoke in response to the letter’s accusations.

 

Chair Clarke stated for the record that no members of the public submitted request to speak forms.

 

Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum commented that there is an issue with alleged Ellis Act violations for the building currently on this site and the Rent Control Board staff is reviewing that issue. He stated that the Rent Control Board has the authority to nullify the act, however this is not relevant to the current proceeding.

 

Commissioner Olsen commented that he has reviewed the Code section regarding extensions. He stated that this is a de novo hearing and that he can not review this project at this late hour, therefore he will not support the extension request.

 

Commissioner Johnson asked staff what happens if the Commission denies the request. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that this is simply a request to extend a previously approved CUP. If the applicant reapplies, it will not be for a CUP, but rather a Design Compatibility Permit.

 

Commissioner Johnson expressed unease with the Coastal Commission’s desire for visitor serving/commercial uses and the City’s zoning for housing. Mr. Misner read from the R3R District section of the Code the types of uses permitted as follows: bed and breakfast, bike or ski rentals, and residential uses.

 

Chair Clarke asked if a restaurant would be a permitted use. Mr. Misner stated that restaurants are not permitted in the R3R District.

 

Commissioner Brown stated that, as she reads the Code section for extension requests, the Commission is obligated to hear the request, not go back “to square one.” She stated that the key word is “process.” Commissioner Brown stated that she sees no reason to deny the request.

 

There was discussion regarding differing requirements for residential CUPs versus Design Compatibility Permits (DCPs). There was also discussion and interpretation of the Code section governing the request for an extension.

 

Commissioner Johnson asked if the Landmarks Commission would again review the project if the applicant reapplies with a new project. Mr. Misner stated that the Landmarks Commission would only review the existing structures if the previously approved demolition permit has expired. Mr. Perry stated that the existing buildings will be reviewed by the Landmarks Commission again when this extension is granted.

 

Commissioner Olsen made a motion to deny the extension request.

 

Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. He stated there are too many unanswered questions regarding Coastal Commission approval and Ellis Act  issues.

 

Commissioner Olsen stated for the record that he can not make the findings to approve the extension request. Commissioner Brown asked Commissioner Olsen which finding he could not make. He stated he could not make any of the findings in the affirmative.

 

            The motion to deny the extension of the CUP was approved by the following vote: AYES: Brown, Clarke, Hopkins, Johnson, Olsen; ABSENT: Dad, Moyle.

 

ATTACHMENT F

 

ARCHITECTURAL PLANS

 

Electronic version of attachment is not available for review.  Document is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office and the Libraries.