September 16, 2008
City Council Meeting: September 9, 2008
Agenda Item: 6-A
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Eileen Fogarty, Planning & Community
Development
Subject: Appeal of Planning
Commission’s Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map for a 12-unit Condominium
Project at
Recommended
Action
Staff recommends the City Council deny
appeal 08APP-012 and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Tract Map
06TM-040 allowing the airspace subdivision for the purpose of constructing a
new 12-unit residential condominium project at
Executive
Summary
The applicant, Federal Avenue
Partners, LLC, requests approval of Tentative Tract Map (06TM-040) to allow an
airspace subdivision for the purpose of constructing a new 12-unit residential
condominium project comprised of 10 market-rate units and 2 moderate-income
level units.
The Planning Commission approved
the application after making the requisite findings concluding that the project
is consistent with the applicable General Plan and zoning regulations, is not
likely to cause environmental damage, and is physically suitable for the site.
On July 30th, 2008,
the appellants filed appeals for the Commission’s approval of
·
Project site (
·
Project design flaws related to air, light, common area, green
space, building height and massing;
·
Concerns related to noise, dust, fumes, traffic, parking, and
health of neighboring residents due to proposed construction;
·
Inadequate public noticing;
·
Inaccurate and inadequate environmental review; and
·
Contrary to the best interests of the City and residents.
As detailed below,
Staff supports the Planning Commission’s action in approving the project.
Background
On
December 12, 2006, the applicant applied for a Vesting Tentative Tract Map to
allow an airspace subdivision for a 12-unit condominium complex. The applicant, Federal Avenue Partners LLC,
also filed a separate application for a 12-unit condominium project for the
adjacent site to the south at
A CEQA
Class 32 Exemption determination was completed on February 21, 2008. The environmental review evaluates the
subject site and the adjacent project site.
Project / Site Information
The following table provides a
brief summary of the project location:
|
Zoning District: |
R3, Medium
Density Multiple Residential |
Site Location Map |
|
Land Use |
High Density Residential |
|
|
Parcel Area (SF): |
11,250 |
|
|
Parcel
Dimensions: |
75’W x 150’D |
|
|
Existing On-Site
Improvements (Year Built): |
14 unit apartment
building constructed in 1954 to be demolished |
|
|
Rent Control
Status: |
14 Rent
Controlled Units |
|
|
Adjacent Zoning
Districts and Land Uses: |
Surrounded by R3
Zoned Parcels with Multi-Family Residential Units |
The
proposed subdivision is consistent with the City’s General Plan in that a
twelve (12) unit condominium subdivision is proposed in an area where High
Density Residential uses are encouraged, and the proposed density of
development complies with the limitations established for this land use
district. The proposed design of the units will also meet the intent of the
General Plan by not exceeding three (3) stories or 35 feet in height.
Developments of similar use and density are also prevalent in the immediate
neighborhood.
Discussion
Planning
Commission Action
At its
April 16th, 2008 hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the
proposed project and continued the item to allow the applicant and Staff to
further clarify information related to both 858 and
·
The verification of the property sites as two
separate parcels;
·
The applicability of the Construction Rate
Program;
·
The existing buildings’ potential as historic
resources
·
The methodology used for the traffic analysis
and issues related to alley activity,
·
The cumulative impacts of side-by-side projects,
and;
·
The projects’ consistency with the Housing
Element and the Affordable Housing Production Program.
At its
June 18, 2008 hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the requested
information. The Planning Commission voted to approve the Vesting Tentative
Tract Map with added conditions. The
added conditions included requiring that the Architectural Review Board pay
special attention to the project’s landscaping, use of property line walls,
visual permeability and pedestrian orientation, and to review the building’s
design in a manner that is compatible with the adjacent site at
More
information and details can be found in the staff reports which can be viewed
at the following web addresses:
April
16th, 2008 Hearing
http://www01.smgov.net/planning/commission/agendas/pc2008/ps2008041608-B.pdf
June
18th, 2008 Hearing
http://www01.smgov.net/planning/commission/agendas/pc2008/ps2008061808-A.htm
Appeal
Analysis
On July
30th, 2008, the appellants appealed both the Commission’s approval
of
Separate Project Sites
The appellants state
that the subject site (
The two adjacent
parcels indeed share a dividing wall located below grade that serve to separate
the existing subterranean garages.
However, Staff has confirmed that each building is situated on a
separate parcel. Staff’s conclusions are
based on the review of the following materials:
- Building address records; and
(Attachment F)
- Rent Control Registrations. (Attachment
F)
Declarations
prepared by the tenants state that the courtyard style apartments and amenities
are used as one development even though each property includes a separate
laundry facility and parking area.
Although the property management may currently allow the shared use of
the various amenities for the existing structures, the proposed development on
the subject site and adjacent site will constitute independent projects with
separate access, utilities, and amenities.
The construction and operation of each of the proposed condominium
buildings will be under separate permits and have separate Home Owner
Associations.
The appellants’
statement also refers to a previous application filed for
Staff finds that the
evidence establishes the subject site and the adjacent project site are two
separate parcels and the filing of separate applications was appropriate.
Project Design
The appellants state
that the project possesses design flaws related to air, light, common area,
green space, building height and massing in comparison to the existing
building.
The proposed project
application consists of a map that represents the airspace division delineating
the proposed number of units and building footprint. The proposed project does not exceed the
Development Review threshold of 22,500 square feet and therefore issues related
to design, size, massing, or neighborhood compatibility are not part of this
review.
=
Bird’s Eye View
of Massing and Density of Immediate Neighborhood
Detailed building design,
colors, materials, and landscaping are not submitted in conjunction with a
Tentative Tract Map application. Such
details will subsequently be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board where
the design considerations related to neighborhood context evaluated. As a general condition of approval of the
tentative map, the project
plans for the condominium development will be subject to a complete Code
Compliance review when the condominium plans are submitted for plan check and
must comply with all applicable City of Santa Monica ordinances, regulations,
and policies prior to building permit issuance.
The Planning Commission’s conditions of
approval for the project also included specific direction for the Architectural
Review Board to review architectural theme, full design integration of the
affordable units, compatibility of the adjacent project site, landscaping, and
pedestrian orientation.
Environmental Analysis and Construction Impacts
Concerns related to construction noise,
dust, fumes, traffic, parking, and health of neighboring residents are also
raised in the appellants’ appeal statement.
Environmental consultants, PCR Services, Inc.,
prepared a Class 32 exemption for the proposed project. The project is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Class 32, Section 15332 (b) of the
CEQA Guidelines, where projects characterized as in-fill development, meet the
following conditions:
1.
The project is
consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable
General Plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and
regulations.
2.
The proposed
development occurs within the city limits on a project site of no more than
five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
3.
The project site
has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
4.
Approval of the
project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise,
air quality, or water quality.
5.
The site can be
adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Documentation verifying compliance with the above
conditions is included with this report as Attachment C. The environmental review evaluates the
subject project site and adjacent project site located at
The technical data
contained in the report concluded that no significant air quality or noise
impact would occur as a result of the proposed project. Furthermore, a traffic analysis determined
that since the proposed developments consist of fewer units than presently
exists, fewer vehicle trips will be generated than the existing buildings. As a
result, the project would not result in any significant traffic impacts.
With respect to the
appellants’ statement that the commencement of construction would jeopardize
the health and safety of the tenants on the adjacent property, the Department
of Environmental and Public Works Management must approve a construction plan
for each project site. Projects
involving excavation abutting an existing building or property line wall are
required to submit detailed, technical documents such as a geotechnical report
and an excavation and shoring plan for review by the City’s Building &
Safety Division. Construction sites are
also subject to compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance and subject to
construction noise design controls. These design controls include limiting the
construction activity hours, days and decibel levels, and providing a list of
measures to be implemented to minimize noise impacts on nearby residences.
Additionally, on
March 11, 2008 the City Council clarified the applicability of the City’s
Construction Rate Program that limits the number of projects in close proximity
to each other. The program regulates the timing and distribution of
construction projects during the building permit process. The two projects located at 858 and
Public Notice
The appellants state
that the Planning Commission hearings were inadequately noticed. Specifically, declarations regarding a lack
of notice have been attached in the appellants’ materials stating that the
declarant did not receive a notice of public hearing for the Planning Commission
meetings.
The applicant provided
a list of mailing labels prepared and certified by Joseph Cahn, Civil Engineer
& Land Surveyor. Notices were mailed
in accordance with noticing requirements set forth in SMMC 9.20.14.010
for the hearing on April 16, 2008 and continued hearing on June 18, 2008. A 300-foot radius map and list of property owners and building
occupants were submitted as part of the application and are contained in the
project file. Additionally, the September 9, 2008 City Council meeting has been
noticed in accordance with legal requirements.
Planning Commission Findings
The appellants
assert that the Planning Commission’s findings for approval are contrary to the
best interests of the City.
Specifically, the appellants state that the goals for affordable housing
are in conflict with the findings for approval.
Pursuant to SMMC
9.20.14.040, the following findings are required in order to approve a
tentative map:
1.
The
proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified
in Government Code Section 65451.
2.
The
design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable
general and specific plans.
3.
The
site is physically suitable for the type of development.
4.
The
site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
5.
The
design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
6.
The
design of the subdivision or the type of improvement is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
7.
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.
8.
The
proposed subdivision is consistent with any ordinance or law of the City of
The Planning
Commission found that the proposed project will not exceed the permitted
building height of 35-feet and unit density limitations set forth in the
General Plan. The site is suitable for
development in that the parcel is within an urbanized area and adequately
served by existing roadways and infrastructure and can physically accommodate the
proposed development.
Additionally, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s current
Housing Element. Housing Plan Goal 2.0
is to “increase the supply of housing affordable to very low, low, and moderate
income persons.” The Housing Element
goal is further supported by Policy 2.3: “to cooperate with housing providers
to promote the development and operation of rental housing for very low and low
income households, and ownership housing for low and moderate income household
units in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program.
The applicant is
providing two (2) ownership units in accordance with the Affordable Housing
Production Program and will be required to meet all of its applicable
provisions including sales price, monthly payment, and limited equity and resale
restrictions. The program requires
verification of eligibility and household income of interested buyers/renters.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
This recommendation has no budget or fiscal impact.
Prepared
by:
Grace Cho, Associate Planner
|
Approved: |
|
Forwarded to Council: |
|
|
|
|
|
Eileen Fogarty Director, Planning & Community Development |
|
P. City Manager |
Attachments:
A.
Appeal
Form & Materials
B.
C.
Class
32 Exemption Environmental Assessment
D.
Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 68399
E.
Planning
Commission Statement of Official Action
F.
Rent
Control Registrations and Permits
ATTACHMENT
A
Appeal
Form & Materials
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
Electronic
version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City
Clerk’s office and the libraries.
ATTACHMENT
C
Class
32 Exemption Environmental Assessment
Electronic
version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City
Clerk’s office and the libraries.
ATTACHMENT
D
Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 68399
Electronic
version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City
Clerk’s office and the libraries.
ATTACHMENT
E
Planning
Commission Statement of Official Action
|
|
PROJECT INFORMATION CASE NUMBER: Tract
Map 06-040 [Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 68399]
LOCATION: APPLICANT: Property Owner: CASE PLANNER: REQUEST: The applicant
requests approval of an airspace subdivision at the subject property for the
purpose of constructing a new 12 unit residential condominium project. CEQA STATUS: The
project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Class 32, Section 15332 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. |
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
|
June 18, 2008 |
Determination Date |
|
x |
Approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions
below. |
|
|
Denied. |
|
|
Other: |
|
EFFECTIVE
DATES OF ACTIONS IF NOT APPEALED: |
June 29, 2008 |
|
EXPIRATION DATE
OF ANY PERMITS GRANTED: |
June 29, 2010 |
|
LENGTH OF ANY
POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES*: |
Maximum three (3)
years with Planning Commission approval |
* Any request for an extension of the
expiration date must be received in the City Planning Division prior to
expiration of this permit.
Each and all of the
findings and determinations are based on the competent and substantial evidence,
both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the
Project. All summaries of information
contained herein or in the findings are based on the substantial evidence in
the record. The absence of any
particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular
finding is not based in part on that fact.
FINDINGS:
9.
The
proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as
specified in Government Code Section 65451. Specifically, while the subject
property is not located in an area governed by a specific plan as specified in
Government Code Section 65451, compliance with the City’s General Plan is
required. For the purpose of subdividing the subject parcel, there are two
pertinent policies that must be evaluated with the map; those policies relate
to building height and unit density. As noted and shown on the subject map, the
project complies with applicable policies, including unit density and height
standards for the subject land use designation.
10.
The
design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable
general and specific plans. Specifically, while the subject property is not
located in an area governed by a specific plan, compliance with the City’s
General Plan is required. As noted and shown on the subject map, the proposed
improvements will not exceed land use designation limits to building height and
unit density.
11.
The
site is physically suitable for the type of development. Specifically, the
subject parcel is a standard-sized parcel located within an urbanized area
adequately served by existing roadways and infrastructure. The property is
physically able to accommodate the proposed development.
12.
The
site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
Specifically, the subject parcel is a standard-sized parcel located within an
urbanized area adequately served by existing roadways and infrastructure.
Moreover the type of development and unit density is consistent with policies
set forth in the City’s General Plan and other improvements in the general
vicinity.
13.
The
design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat, in that the proposed subdivision is located in an
urbanized area that does not contain habitats or would otherwise injure fish
and wildlife.
14.
The
design of the subdivision or the type of improvement is not likely to cause
serious public health problems. The proposed subdivision is for a property
located in an urbanized area and is consistent with other similar improvements
in the area. As noted and shown on the map, the project complies with height
and unit density limitations set forth in the General Plan. The subdivision of
the parcel does not have the potential to disrupt the urban environment or
otherwise cause serious public health problems.
15.
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 there are no public easements
located within the proposed subdivision.
16.
The
proposed subdivision is consistent with any ordinance or law of the City of
CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL:
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Administrative
1.
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
2.
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. The
signed Statement shall be returned to the City Planning Division. Failure to comply with this condition shall
constitute grounds for potential permit revocation.
3.
An appeal of the approval conditions of approval,
or denial of a subdivision map must be filed with the City Clerk within ten
consecutive days following the date of Planning Commission determination in the
manner provided in Part 9.20.14, Section 9.20.14.070. Any appeal must be made
in the form required by the Zoning Administrator.
4.
Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.04.10.02.450(d), if
the Building Official determines that another building permit has been issued less than fifteen months
prior to the date on which the building permit for this project has received
all plan check approvals and none of the relevant exceptions specified in
9.04.10.02.450(c) and (e) apply, the Building Official shall place the project
on a waiting list in order of the date and time of day that the permit
application received all plan check approvals, and the term of this approval
and other City approvals or permits necessary to commence the project shall be
automatically extended by the amount of time that a project remains on the
waiting list. 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
1-year extension may be permitted if approved by the Director of Planning. Applicant is on notice that time extensions
shall not be granted if development standards or the development process
applicable to the project have changed since project approval. Extension
requests to a subdivision map must be approved by the Planning Commission.
5.
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.
6.
Applicant
is advised that projects in the California Coastal Zone may need approval of
the California Coastal Commission prior to issuance of any building permits by
the City of
Conformance with Approved Plans
7.
Project
plans for the condominium development shall be subject to a complete Code
Compliance review when the condominium plans are submitted for plan check and
shall comply with all applicable City of Santa Monica ordinances, regulations,
and policies prior to building permit issuance, including, but not limited to,
the requirements established or authorized by Articles VII, VIII, and IX of the
Municipal Code.
Affordable Housing Obligation
9. Pursuant
to Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter 9.56, the project is subject to
the City's Affordable Housing Production Program which requires the proposed
10-unit condominium development to provide twenty (20) percent of the units
affordable to moderate income households on-site or 2 units. As such, the
applicant will provide 2 two-bedroom moderate income unit(s) on-site (SMMC
Section 9.56.050(a). Prioritization of potential occupants of the on-site
affordable housing unit(s) shall be in accordance with the Affordable Housing
Production Program Ordinance Guidelines.
Density Bonus
Incentives/Concessions
10. Pursuant
to Ordinance No. 2252 (CCS), the applicant is proposing 2 density bonus units
and has requested incentives/concessions from development standards for the proposed
project which include: 10% side yard setback deviation and 15% front yard
deviation. The requested incentives/concessions will be considered and acted
upon by the Director of Planning and Community Development or his/her designee
in accordance with subsection (o)(3) of Section 2 of the Ordinance.
11.
Prior
to the issuance of a building permit, a deed restriction limiting future use,
occupancy, sales price and/or rental rates of the project must be drafted,
executed by the property owner, City and recorded by the County Recorder. Restrictions on affordable sales price,
rental rates and qualified income occupants shall be effective for 55 years
from Certificate of Occupancy. The
applicant needs to submit a Deed Restriction application, including a complete
and accurate legal description of the property; the full name(s) of the
property owner(s); the full name(s) and tile of the person(s) authorized to
execute deed documents on behalf of the property owner to the City Planning
Division early during the plan check process to avoid delay. A title report or copy of the current deed
contains this information.
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.
13.
Prior
to issuance of a condominium license, the developer shall provide for the payment
of a Condominium Tax of $1,000 per planned salable unit pursuant to Chapter
6.76 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
Cultural Resources
14.
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 a final determination is made by the Landmarks Commission on the
application.
Rent Control
15.
Pursuant
to SMMC Section 4.24.030, 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.
CC&Rs
16.
Prior
to issuance of building permits, 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 SMMC Section 9.20.20.020
and such provisions as are required by SMMC Section 9.04.16.01.030(e).
Standard Conditions
17.
Final
parking lot layout and specifications shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Transportation Management Division.
18.
Plans for
final design, landscaping, screening, trash enclosures, and signage shall be
subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Board.
19.
Landscaping
plans shall comply with Subchapter 9.04.10.04 (Landscaping Standards) of the
Zoning Ordinance including use of water-conserving landscaping materials,
landscape maintenance and other standards contained in the Subchapter.
20.
Refuse
areas, storage area and mechanical equipment shall be screened in accordance
with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.10.02.130, 140, and 150. Refuse areas shall be of a size adequate to
meet on-site need, including recycling.
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.
21.
Prior
to issuance of a building permit, a copy of the recorded map shall be provided
to the City Planning Division.
22.
Prior
to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate
compliance with Subchapter 9.04.16 Condominiums, and the provisions of SMMC
Section 9.04.08.06 Multiple Family Residential District.
23.
Until
such time as the demolition is undertaken, and unless the structure is
currently in use, the existing structure shall be maintained and secured 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.
24.
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 control impacts on the
project neighborhood.
25.
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.
ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC WORKS MANAGEMENT (EPWM)
Drainage
26.
Notwithstanding
any Subdivision Map notations to the contrary, in order to mitigate storm water
and surface runoff from the project site, an Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan may
be required by the Department of Environmental and Public Works Management
(EPWM) pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 7.10.
Prior to submittal of landscape plans for Architectural Review Board
approval, the applicant shall contact EPWM to determine applicable
requirements, which include the following:
·
Non-stormwater
runoff, sediment and construction waste from the construction site and parking
areas is prohibited from leaving the site;
·
An
sediments or materials which are tracked off-site must be removed the same day
they are tracked off-site;
·
Excavated
soil must be located on the site and soil piles should be covered and otherwise
protected so that sediments do not go into the street or adjoining properties;
·
Washing
of construction or other vehicles shall be allowed adjacent to a construction
site. No runoff from washing vehicles on
a construction site shall be allowed to leave the site;
·
Drainage
controls may be required depending on the extent of grading and topography of
the site; and
·
New
development is required to reduce projected runoff pollution by at least twenty
percent through incorporation of design elements or principles, such as
increasing permeable surfaces, diverting or catching runoff via swales, berms, and
the like; orientation of drain gutters towards permeable areas; modification of
grades; use of retention structures and other methods.
Environmental
Mitigation
27.
Ultra-low
flow plumbing fixtures are required on all new development and remodeling where
plumbing is to be added, including dual flush toilets, 1.0 gallon urinals and
low flow shower heads.
28.
To
mitigate solid waste impacts, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,
project owner shall submit a recycling plan to the Department of Environmental
and Public Works Management for its approval.
The recycling plan shall include:
● List of materials such as white paper,
computer paper, metal cans, and glass to be recycled;
● Location of recycling bins;
● Designated recycling coordinator;
● Nature and extent of internal and
external pick-up service;
● Pick-up schedule; and
● Plan to inform tenants/occupants of
service.
Streets
29.
Unless
otherwise approved by the Department of Environmental and Public Works
Management, all sidewalks shall be dept clear and passable during the grading
and construction phase of the project.
30.
Streets
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 fo the
Department of Environmental and Public Works.
Off-site
31.
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.
32.
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.
Final Map Requirements
33.
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.
34.
The
form, contents, accompanying data, and filing of the final subdivision map
shall conform to the provisions of SMMC Sections 9.20.12.010 through
9.20.08.090 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.
35.
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.
36.
Prior
to approval of the Final Map, the requirements of Santa Monica Municipal Code
Section 9.04.10.16.010 (d) shall have been met.
VOTE: TM
06-040
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
NOTICE
If this is a final
decision not subject to further appeal under the City of
I hereby
certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final
determination of the Planning Commission of the City of
_____________________________ _____________________________
Gwynne Pugh, Chairperson Date
Acknowledgement by Permit Holder
I hereby agree to the above conditions of approval
and acknowledge that failure to comply with such conditions shall constitute
grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval.
|
Print Name and Title |
|
|
Applicant’s Signature |
|