The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-7-A (17)PCD SF KG BL f 1planlsharelcounc~llstrptleqpc9700 wpd Council Mtg January 27. 1998 TO Mayor and City Caunc~l ~RaM City Staff 7~ ,~ ;N 2 71~ Santa Monica, California SUBJECT Appeal 97-021 and 97-D22 of the Planning Commission's Appro~af af an Earthquake Reco~ery Permit for the In-K~nd Recons~ruct~on of an E~ght Story, 178 Unit Apartment Building (tf~e Sea Castle) at 1725 The Promenade Applicant Wade Killefer, AIA Appellants Jerry Bass and Stephanre Barbar~eN (Appeal 97-02~ ), and Elien Bren~ran {Appeal 97- 022) INTRODUCTION This repart recommends that t~~ City Council deny the appeals anci uphold the Pianning Commiss~an's appro~ai of Earthquake Reco~ery Permit (EQPC) 97-001 for the in-kmd reconstruction of an eight-story, 17$ unit apartment building, located at the s~te cammonly referred to as the '`Sea Castle " On October 22, 1997, the Planning Cammkssian ~oted 8-0 to approve the pro~ect (one member of tF~e Architecturaf Rev~ew Board sits vuith the Planning Comm~ssion and may vote on Earthquake R~co~ery Pro~ec#s pursuant to Section 9 ~ af the Earthquake Recovery Act)_ There are two appeals filed, ane from Jerry Bass and Stephan~e Barba~ell (Bass/Barbanell), and one from Ellen Brennan (Brennan} The appeal statements wer~ filed October 27, 1997 and are contained m Attacf~ments A and 6 BACKGR~UND Proiect Description Proposed is the in-kind reconstruction of an e~ght-story, pl~s two-story elevatorl obser~atory pent~rause, 178-unrt apartment burldrng As a result of the Northrrdge 1 .f~~JZ?~ Earthquake, the original buildkng was significantly damaged and subsequently demolished m May, 1996 TF-e replacement building wi[I ma~ntain the same bu~lding s~tback envelope and number of staries, except the original three-story apartment pe~thouse wrll be replaced w~th a smaller two-story ele~atorllookout penthouse, resulting in a 1~6-foot building he~ght to the top of the pen#house compared to the or~ginal bu~ldmg's '120 foot 2~nch overall he~ght The pro~osed pro~ect w~11 ha~e the same use and number af units, the same bu~lding setbacks, and compiies with the Earthquake Act build~ng height requirements The development is consistent with the +n-ki~d residenfial reconstruction requiremenf, as set forfF~ in the Ear#hquake Recovery Act PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW At the October 22, ~ 997 Planr~ing Comm~ss~or~ p~bl~c hear~r~g, the Planr,ing Commission approved the pro~ect w~th tY~e condit~on that design changes occur at the ground flo~r level The building des-gn plans submitted for the City Counc~Ps re~iew incorporates pedestrian ariented design ~mprovements to address the Plann~ng Commission concerns The Planning Commission determmed that, as cond~tioned, the praject meets City Gode requirements for an earthquaKe reconstrucfian pro~ect Pro~ec# ~esigr~ The orig~nal building included small units The design of the praposed pro}ect reco~figures ~rev~ous lobby, ballroom and r~rc~~nd floor areas to ~ncrease apartm~nt sizes and improve hous~ng quality Thirty-three of the apartments will be stud~a units and 145 one-bedroom units w~11 be pravided Unit sizes will ~ary frorn 375 square feet 2 to 1,a0~ square feet I# shauld be noted tha# the Earthquake Act requires 178 un~ts ~e reconstructed, but prov~des flex~bil~ty in the proJect's floor plan design A total of 25% of the units will be cieed-restricted affordabfe Space for on-s~te management, fobby, laundry and I~mited exerc~se facilxt~es are pravided on the first floor Twenty park~ng spaces are also provided at the eastern port~on of the first #loo~ with access from App~an Way The basement has been expanded w~rh,~ the or~gmal building's foo#prmt to ~~-crease park~n~ capac~#y to 5'! spaces accessible from Marine Terrace The pra~ect w~ll provide a total of 71 parkmg spaces, compared to the pre-earthquake capacity of ~4 spaces The build~ng design has its raots m the early Art Deco period Recessed windows, camice detailmg, vanatians m wall plane, expansion ~o~nt detailing and use of color prov~de rel~efi to tY~e stucca walls and er~har~ces the bu~ld~ng's appearar~ce The soutl~ bujlding wall setback has been increased to allow the installation of windows and facade deta~ling The bu~iding design plans subm~tted far the City Counc~l's rev~ew have been modrf~ed tn res~or~se to t~e Pfannir~g CQmm~ss~on's cor~cerns regard~ng enhancing the des~gn af the building's base Staff will analyze the revised plans for conformance w~th the Earthquake Reco~ery Act and the Planntng Gomm~ssion concerns when fu~l scale plans are submftte~ pr~or to ~ss~rng bu~lding permits Earthauaice Recoverv Act Canformance Th~e Earthquake Recovery Act permrts rn-kind reconstruct~an of noncon~ormir~g structures damaged by the Norti~ridge Earthquake and pra~ides for an expedited review 3 process As ~roposed, the ~ro~ect compfies w~th the defin~tEOn of m-k~nd reconstruct~on as stipulated in the Earthquake Recovery Act in that the repiacement buiiding setbacks anc~ !ot coverage are no greater than that of tt~e prev~ous struct~re A~tho~gh the overaN height of the building is lower, portians af the 4th fiaar and the 8th floor are five (5) feet ~t~gher whrch ~s author~zed by the Earthquake Act The mtens~#y of the use, represented by the number of apartments, ts identical to the pre-earthquake pro~~ct The d~fferences between the prev~ous builafEng and the pra~osed pro~ect are summarrzed in the following table US~ SIZE HEIGHT SETBACKS PARKING Pre- 178 Unit 150,681 sf 8~ 3 Front 6" 54 garage Earxhquake Apartment ~ark~na 16.791 sf res~dentia[ Side 6" spaces Total '! 67,472 sf penthouse Fiear 6" stories 120'- 2~~ Proposed 178 llnit 135,173 sf 8+2 story Front 6" 71 garage Reconstruc- Apartmsnt parkinp 36,797 sf e~uip Side 6" speces tion Total 171,890 sf penthouse Rear 6" Pro~ecf 4 ~ 6' APPEAL ANA~YSIS The pr~mary issue ra~sed by bath appeNants perta~ns to provrsions of the Earthauake Act that allow nor~-confarm~ng buildmgs to be reconstructed to their pre-earthquaks design standards Because many af the sarthqualce damaged buildmgs were older structures that do not comply w~th current de~elopment standards, #he Earthquake Act speci~cally authorizes that nonconfvrmmg buiiciings may be reconstructed ta fheir pre~ious legal, non-conformmg status, pra~iding the pro~ect rneets the Ac#'s "in-k~nd'~ replacement standards Earthquake reconstruct~on prajects are exempt from current requirements, including off-street parking. bu~ld~ng setbacks and stepbacks, and landscaping requirements ~ Aaqeal 97-022 lBrennan) The appellant ~dentifies three issues in her challenge af the Sea Castle reconstruction pra~ect adverse traff~c, ~nadequate parkmg, and adverse impacts on limited public parkrng resources Circulatior~ The appellant s#ates that traffic on Appian Way will be adversely impacted ~~ the Sea Castle rs recans#rueted As i~d~catec! in the appeal statement, App~an Way rs a two lane lacal street that ser~es the 5anta Monica beach recreational area The Santa Monica beach is a pr~me Sauthern Caltfornia recreational resource that atfracts people from throughaut the State during the peak beach season as well as for spec~al ~vents The ne~ghborhaoc! ~s impac#ed by visitors, however, the pro~ect is the recQnstruction Qt an earthquake-damaged build~ng, 17$ units existed prior to the earthquake and 178 units will be rebuilt As a result, this pro~ect wiil nflt contribute additional traffic to the ne~ghborhood beyond that traffic attributed ta the Sea Castle before the earthquake Parking Since the Earthquake Reco~ery Act allows a pro~ect to be rebuilt with the pre~ious non- canformmg par4c~ng, 54 spaces are required fior this pro~ect As proposed. the pro~ec# provides 7~ park~r~~ spaces that comply with c~rrent code requirements far stall s~ze, access and ADA The appellants argue that the Sea Casfle should pravide addif~onal subterranean parking Although the Ear~hquake Act encourages providing additional parking, this is not required The pro~ect increases on-site parking ~y 76°/a, which exceeds the m~n~mum park~ng ~equ~rements for th~s pro~ect 5 lmr~acts on Public Park~nq Resources PUblic park~ng resources rnclude an-s~reet ar~d pub~rc off-street parkrng lats Ir~ genera~. pub~cc paric~ng rs a~aifab~e to all resrdents and vtsitors on a frrst-came, fi~rst-served basis Lr~e #he Sea Castie, most apartments in the area do nat have sufficient parking for their tenants ancf many occupants rely on public parking The State, wh~ch owns the pubfic parking lots, prevents the City #rom gi~Eng residents prior~ty over any visitor who chooses to use the lot for parking Therefore, the City cannot dedicate public parking ta residents or prioritize residential parking o~er visitor parking As discussed abo~e, the Sea Castle ~s only requ~red to provide 54 off-street park~ng spaces pursuant to the Ear~hquake Reca~ery Act Sea Castle tenants will ha~e the same nghts to public parking #hat prior Sea Castie tenants and other apartme~t residents en~oy G~~en the s~ze of most of the buiidings in the ne~ghborhaod, parking shortages will exist Apoeai 97-02~ (Bass/Barbanell) The appellants identify two issues in their challenge of thE Sea Castle recanstruction pro}ect the Earthquake Reca~ery Act has been abused, and the welfare of the South Beach ne~ghborhood will be negatively impacted Non-Compliance w~th the Eartha~ake Act The appe!lants cor~tend tt~at the Sea Castle does nat q~al~fy for ar~ Earthquake Reco~ery Perm~t because the origina~ bu~ld~t~g could ~aWe been repa~red pr~or to a fre that caused addrtiona~ damage to tfte burldmg in '1996 The appellant t~c~rcates that the property owner and the C~ty were respansibie for the f~re and #ha property owner is abus~ng the Earthquake Act The appeffants be[+eve that the Earthquake Recovery Act 6 proh~b~ts the demolit~on and reconstruction of a bu~lding ~f it can be rehabilitated However, the Act provides that a bu~ld+ng can be repaired or reconstructed pursuant to an Earthquake Recovery Permat if earthquake related dama~e to thE b~~ld~ng exceeds one dollar (~1 00} per square foat of building area Sett~ng aside fire damage that was directly or ~ndrrectly related to bu~ld~ng damage from t~e Northridge Eart~rquake, the cost estimate ta repa+r anly earthquake damage to the buildmg was ~7,5~6,3Q7 (per the Rent Control Board de#erminatron dated September 22, ~ 994), which exceeds tt~e $167,472 00 requiremen# to qualify the pro~ect for an Earthquake Recovery Permi# The same application couid have been approved if the Sea Castie was standing m the same condition today as ~t was or~ the day after the Northridge Earthquake Since the Gity must cons~der each building appl~cation on the merits of the proposed pro~ecfs plans, not on the motives of a praperky owner m seelcmg City perm~ts, the appellants, concerns that the property owner 3s abusing the Earthquake Recovery Act is r~ot pertinent to C~ty re~iew af this applicatian Negat~ve Impacts to The South Beach Neiahborhaod The appellants contend that "Th~ presence of this massive, non-cflnforming build~ng, va~d of landscap~ng w~th substandard parkmg w~p present nothing short of a hardsh~~ for the neighbors " However, this camment disregards the fact that this pro~ect is the in- k~nd recorrstruct~on ot a bu~lcl~ng that ex~sted on the s+te and, as conr~Ef~oned, compl~es with provisions of the Earthquake Recovery Act. ~rdinance 187~ (GCS) Architectural design apttons for the Sea Cast~e are cons#rarned by the prov~srons of the Earthquake Reco~ery Act, which do not allow the number of residential units to be reduced ar permit a n~n-confarm~ng setbacks ta be mcreased For exampte, a sh~ft or ~ redistribution of building areas to change th~ design would increase existing non- con#orming setbacks, while a significant size reduction #o redesign massing would require a reduction in units Accardingly, the replacement building's setbacks, location and mass design are the same as the original building The appellant's concerns regarding circulation and park~ng are sjmilar to Appeal 97-022, wh~ch ha~e been d~scussed above Conclusion The 5ea Castle Apartment's reconstruc#ion will ha~e the same use and capacity and building setbacks will be the same or greater than the orig~nal structure The }~ro~ect is within the perm~tt~d building height and provides 76% more parking than t~e pre- earthquake structure The pro~ect des~gn is ins~ired by the h~storic buildmg's Art Deco a~ch~tect~rre The mass~r~g ~s substan#~ally s+m~lar to the or~g~nal structure. ar~d, therefore, the pro~ect will be compatible with the surround~ng apartment and hotel developments in the area The Sea Castle has been an integral part ofi the neighborhood, and in fact a neighborhoad landmark for aver 72 years The Planning Commission and Staff believe that this pro~ect, as condtt~oned, complies with prov~sians of the Earthquake Recovery Act, Ordmance 1875 (CCS}, for the ~n-kind recflns#ruction of a res~dent~al rental pro~ect CEQA STATUS The pra~ec# is categorically exempt fram the pro~isians of CEQA pursuant tv Section 15302, Class 2, of the State Guidelines m that the pro~ect inWOlves the in-kind recanstruction of an earthquake damaged a~artment building where the replacement s buifd~ng w~ll be [ocated ~n the same iocation on the same s~fe as the sfructure repfaced, has the same or greater se#backs, same nUmber of stor~es, and same p~rpose ar~d capacity as the pre-earthquake structure PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Pursuant to Sectron T(dj of Ordinance 1875 (CCS), nat~ce vf the pubi~c i~ear~ng was publ~shed in the Outloak and mailed t~ al1 property owners ~n addition to res~~lential and cammercial tenants loca#ed withm a 3a0 foot radius of the pro~ect at least 10 cansecutive calendar days prior to the hearing A copy of the natice is provided ~n Attachmer~t F In addrtion, alf inembers of the publrc who wrote to t~e City regarcfing this pro~ect were alsa notified The praperty was alsa pasted with a 3' by 4' sign, located ~n prominent ~~ew af Appian Way, which pro~ided public nat~fication of the Plann~ng Commiss~on and City C~uncil hearings BUDGETIFINANGIAL IMPACT The recommendation presented m this report does not ha~e any budget or fiscal impac#. RECOMMENDATION It ~s recommencfed that the C+ty Gounci~ ~eny appea[s 97-021 and g7-022, and upho{d t~e Plannir~g Commiss~on apprava~ o€ Eartl~q~ake Recavery Perm~t 97-D0~ w~th the fallow~ng fmdmgs and cond~tions EARTHQUAKE REGOVERY ACT FiNDINGS ~ The str~cture's arch~tectural des~gn ,s compatible w~th the genefal area Mn wh~ch ~t is focated, in that the replacement pro~ect replicates the pre-earthquake 9 bui~ding's setbacks, mass and shape with an updated art deco facade fhat is desigr~ed to be compatible wrth otf~er apartment and hatel develapment ~n the area 2 The ~lan for the proposed build~ng is expressive af good taste, gaod des~gn, and ~n general contributes to #he image of Sahta Montca as a place of beauty, creativity and individuality in that the architect de~eloped a facade design that has ~ts rovts in tne earfy arf deco period when the Sea Castle was built Recessed vvmdows, cornrc~ detarhng, variatians m wa~i piar~e, expansian ~omt deta~lmg and use at calor prov~de rel~ef to t~e stucco avaUs and enhances tY~e bu~lding's appearance The south bu~ldmg waf~ set~aack has been mcreased to allow the ~nstallatian of windows and facade detail~ng, where the or~ginal butilding's south elevativn was a blank wail 3 The praposed f~u~ldrng is not of infenor qua{ity such as to cause the nature of the loeal ne~ghborhood or environmer~t to ma#er~aily depreciate ~n appearance and value, +n that t~te ~78 t~rt~t apartme~t buEldfr+g recortstruct~o+~ is rto ~arger than tt~e pre-earthquake structure, prov~d~s rnore park~ng th~n t~e prs-earthquake structure and ut~l~zes detailmg such as recessed windaws, carnices, and a palette of colors that contnbute to the qual~ty af building design En the neighborhood CONDITIONS Plans 1 This approval ~s far those plans dated December 1, 1997, a copy of which shall be maintamed in fhe files of the C~ty Plann~ng D~vision Pro~ect de~eiopment shal~ be cans+stent wrth such plans, exc~pt as otherwise specrf~ed in these condit~a~s of ap~roval 2 The Plans shall comply w~th al1 other pro~isions of the Earthquake Recovery Act and ali other pertinent ordmances af the C~ty of 5anta Monica as st~pulated in the Earthquake Recavery Act 3 Nimor amendments to the plans shail be subJect ta appra~al by t~te D~rector af Pl~nnrng A sigr~ifrcant char~ge rr~ the approved concept shal! be subfect to Plann~ng Commiss~on Review Construction shall be ~n confarmance with the appro~ed plans, or as modif~ed and specifically appro~ed ay the Planning Commission, Arch~tectural Review Board or D~rector of Planrnng 4 Pursuanf ta Section 14 of the Earffi~quake Reco~ery act (~rdinance 1875) tenants dispiaced from a res~dent~ai hausing unit in a~ earthquake damaged structure shall be ent~tle~! to reo~cupy the un~t Haus~ng ~anits wh~cY~ are r~ot f~~led by retum~ng tenants must then !~e used to meet any Affordable Housing 1Q Obfiga#ian requ~red by SectEOn 5 of the Act if the Qbligat~on ~s not currently t~e~ng met 5 The devebper shall covenant and agree w~th the C~#y of Santa N1onrca to the specifrc terms, cor~dit~ons and restrictcans upon the possess~on, use and enJoyment of the subject prop~rty, which terms, condit~ons and restrict~ons shall be recorded witt~ the Las ~#ngeles Cvunty Recor~er's Off~ce as a part of the deed of the property fo ensure tha# affordable un~ts are provided and maintained over t~me and through subsequent sales of the proparty An inclusionary requirement of ~v-renty-fEVe percent (45 units) shail apply to the pra~ect of which 22 units shall be affordable to households not exceeding sixty percent of the (HUD} Los Angeles County median +ncome and 23 units shall be affordable to households with incomes not exceeding 100°/o of the (HUD) Los Angeles Caunty median ~ncome, expending not ov~r 30% of monthly income on hausehold cos#s, as spec~fied by the Housing Di~~sion o# the Department of Resou~ce Management Th~s agreement sha41 be execut~d and recorded pr~or to approval af the Bu~ld~ng Perm~t Such agreement shall spec~~r (~) responsib~lit~es ot the developer for mak~r~g the ur~~ts ava~lable to el~g~ble tenants and (2} responsib~l~ties of tY~e Cfty of Santa Mnnrca ta prepare appl~cat~on torms for potent~al tenants, establ~sh cr~teria for qual~ficat~orrs, and monitvr eomplranee with prov~sions of the agreement Owner s~ali provide the Crty Pfannmg Divrsion w~ti~ a conformed copy of the recorded agreement prior to a~pro~ai of the Bu~idmg Permit 6 A copy af these Condifians of Appro~al shafl be ~lueprinted ~erbatim on the plans submi~ted for #inal plan chec[c approWaf to all agencies ~nvofved m issu~ng construction permits far the pro~ect 7 Final parkmg lat layout and specif~cations shall be sub~ect to conformance ~e~iew and appro~al of the Parkmg and Traffic Eng~neer 8 To ~mprove the building's ground le~el pedestnan onentation. the build~ng's base shall provide a sl~ght (1 ta 2 in~h} stepback design at a~edestr+an or~ented he~gnt af between 3-1/2 and 4-112 fee# with some add~t~onal vert~cal art~culat~on, primarily at the corners The pedestr~an oriented desGgn should extend to al! s~des, if appropr~ate Rev~sed pl~ns w~th specific clesigr~, rnater~als, and co~ors s~all be s~bmitted for review and approval by the Darector of Plann~ng and Community Developmer~t prior to the issuance of b~ilc~ing perm~ts 9 An appropr~ate commemarat~on of the hrstary of the bu~~d~ng shall ~e provided, such as a brass or mar~l~ plaque insta~led at the pedestnan fevel, on either side ofi the front entrance The specif~c Iocat~on, design, mater~ais, cofors and text shall be submitted for review and approval by the D~rector of Plannmg and Community De~efopmenf prior ta the issuance of buifd~ng permits 14 Staff ~s encouraged #o continue working with the appl~cant to de~elop an amendment to the Beach lmprovement Group (BVG} pro~ect which meets the l~ public access requ~rements and a[so works fo soften the bu~fding for the pubi~c's benef~t Construct~on 'i 1 During construct~on a secunty fence, the heigi~t of wh~ch shall be the max~mum permitted by fF~e Zoning Ordinance, shalf f~e ma~ntained arounci ~he perimeter of the lat The lot sF~all be kept clear af aIV trash, weeds, cast aff materials. debns, etc 12 Unless otherw~se approved by the De~artmer~t of Env~ror~mental and P~bNc Warks Mar~agement, ali sid~walks shafi be kept clear and passable dunng the grading and construction pf~~se of the pro~ect 13 S~dewalks, curbs, gutters, pa~ing and drtiveways wh~ch need replacing or removal as a result af the pro~ect as determined by the Department of Environmenta! and Publ~c Works Managern~nt shall be reconstructed to the sat~s'factior~ of the Department of Environmental and Publ~c Works Management Whrch may incfude 'I} repfacement of curb gutter and s~dewalk ad~acent to the property along Marme Terrace and Appian Way, 2) Demofition af fhe existmg sea wall and connected tunnel under The Promenade Install compacted backfill and asphalt pa~ing ~6"AC over 6" C M B) w~thin Th~ Promenade Right-of way, and 3} Excavate and remove the exist~ng underground tank and pip~ng below Appian 1Nay ~bta+n requ+red undergrour~d tank remova! perm~ts, remove and praperly dispose af any cor~tammants A~provaf far t~+is work shall be abta~n~d from the Department of En~iranmentai and Public UVorks Management w~thin n~nety (94) days from the efFective date of approval and prior ta commencement of construction '!4 Veh~~les haufmg d~rt or other construct~an debr~s from the site shall cover any open load wf#h a tarpaul~r~ or other sec~re ~o~er~ng to m~n~m~ze dust emissrons 15 A construction penod rnitigataon plan shali be prepared by the applicant for approval by the Department of Environmental and Pu~lic Works Management within ninety (9D) days from the effective date of appro~al and prior to commencement of construction The appro~ed m~t~gation pian shall be posted on tt~e s,te for the durat~on of the pra~e~t constr~ction and sha11 be produc~d upan request As applicak~le, th~s ~lar+ shall 1) Specrfy the names, addresses, telephane r~umbers and busmess I~cense numbers of aii contractors and subcontractors as well as tf~e devefoper and architecf, 2) Describe how demol~t~on of any exist~r~g structures is to be accompl~shed. 3) lndicate where any cranes are ta be loca#ed for erect~onlconstruction, 4) Descr~be haw much of the public streE#. alleyway, or s~dewalk ~s proposed to be used in con~unet~on with construct~on, 5} 5e# fortn the exter~# and nature of any p~~e-dr~v~r~g opera~~or~s, 6) Descrrbe the leng#h and number of any tiebacEcs wh~c~ mus~ extend under the property of otF~er persons, Tj Spec~fy fhe nature and exfenf of any c{ewatermg and its effect on any ad~acent buildings, 8) Describe ant~cipated construction- ~2 related truck roufes, number of truck tr~ps, hours af hauling an~ parking location. 9) Specify the nature and extent af any helicapter hauling, 10) State wl~ether any construction activity beyand normally perm~tted hours is propas~d, 11) Describe any pro~ossd construct~on no~se mitEgat~on measures, 12) Describe construct~on- per~od see~r~ty measures mclur~~ng any tenc~ng, I~ght~ng, and secUrity ~ersonne~. ~ 3) Provccle a drainage plan, 14) Provide a constr~c#ron-~aer~od park~ng plan whic~ shali m~r~imize use of public streets for parkmg, 15} f~ist a designated an- site construcfion manager 16 The property owner shail insure any graffiti on the site ~s promptly removed through c~mplFance w~th the C4ty's graff~t~ remoua! program 17 A sign shal~ b~ posted on the praperty in a manner consistent wrth the pubirc hearing sign requirements whicF+ shali ident~fy the address and phone number of the owner andlor applicant far the purposes of respondmg to questions and compla~nts during the constructian period Said s~gn shall also +ndicate the hours of permiss~ble construction work. 18 A copy of these cond~tions s~af~ be posted ~n an easily v~sr~le and access~ble Iocation at aif times durmg construct~on at the pro~ect site Ti~e pages shafi be iaminated or atE~erw~se protectet~ to ensure duraf~ifify of the copy Env~ronmenta! M~tigat~on 19 Ulfra-low flow plumb~ng fixtures are requ~red or- ai~ new de~elopment and remodefing where p~umbing is to be added (Maximum 1 6 gaifan #oilets and ~ 4 gallon ur~nals and low flow shower head) M~scella~eous Conditions 20 The budd~ng address shall be painted, rn a cantrastmg coior, on the roof af the bui[dmg and shaff ineasure faur feet by eight feet (32 square feet} 21 if any arcnaeoiogical remains are unco~ered during exca~at~an ar construction, work in the affec#ed area shall be suspended and a recagn~zed spec~afist sha~~ be ~ontacted to canduct a s~rvey of the affected area at pro}sct's owner's expense A determination shail then be ma~e by #~e D~rectar af Planr~+ng to determine the s~gnificar~ce of the 5urvey fmdmgs and apprapriate actcans and requ~rements, if any, to address such fin~mgs 22 Streef and/or alley lighting shall be provided an publ~c rights of way ad~acent to the pra~ect if and as needed per tne specifications and w~tn tl~e approval of the Departmer~t of Env~ror~menta! and Publ~c Works Mar~agement 23 F~naf approval of any mechanical equipment installat~on will require a noise test ~n compliance with SMMC Sectian 4 12 044 Equ~pment for the test shail be 13 prov~cled by tne owner or contractor arrd the test shall be conducted by t~e owner or contractar A copy af the noise test results on mechanical e~uipment shall be submitted to the Community Noise Off~cer for re~~ew to ensure that noise 1e~efs do not exceed maximum allowable le~els for the applicable noise zone 24 W~th~n n~r~e#y ~9Q} days fram #ne effective date af a~prova! and prior ta commencement of construction plans shall be pro~ided with all permanent mechanical equipment to be placed indaors wh~ch may be heard outdoors 25 Unless atherw~se approved by the Cammun~ty and Cultural Ser~~ces Department ar~d the Planr~~ng ar~d Commun+ty Developmer~t Department, durrng ~ro~ect construction, any street tr~es shall be protected from damage, death, or remo~al per the requirements of Ordinance 1242 (CCS) Valyd~ty of Permits 26 ln the event permittee violat~s or fa~1s to comply with any condit~ons of appro~al of this permit, na further permits, ficenses, or appro~als shall be issued until such ~iolat~on has been fully remedied 27 W~thin ten days ot City Planr~mg D~v~s~or~ trar~sm~ttal of the Staterr-~en# of Offic~al Action, pro~ec# appl~cant shall sign and return a copy of the Statement of Official Act~on prepared hy the Plannmg Div~s~on, agreemg to the Conditions of appro~al and acknornrledg~ng that failure to comply wkth such conditions shall const~tute grounds for pofenfial revocation of the perm~t ap~rova~ By signmg same, appl+cant shafi r~at thereby wa~~e ar~y legal rights applicant may possess regard~ng sa~d conditions The s~gned Statement shall be returned #o the Planning Div~sion Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute grounds for poten#~al perm~t revocatian 2$ The term of approvai of thcs p~rmit shall ex~ire Aprrl 19, 9998, uniess a bui~dmg permit ~s issued. Af~er exp~rat~on af t~~s Earthquake Recovery Perm~t, no extensians shall be granted and any subsequent application shall be considered for new construction pursuant ta applicabl~ codes ~n affect at the t~me a new applicat~on ~s submitted Prepared by. Suzann~ Friefc, D~rector Karen Ginsberg, Planning Manager Amanda Schachter, Senior Planner Bruce Leach. Associate Pianner Crty P~anning D~vrs~on Planning a~d Commurnty Develo~ment De~artment z4 Attachrnents A A}~pea~ statement af Jerry Bass and Stephan~e Barbar~ell B Appeal statement of Ellen Brennan C Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 22, 1997 D Planning Comm~ssion Minutes - October 22, 1397 E Plannmg Commission Statement of Official Act~on F Public Notice G Public Comments {Carrespondence) H Photographs of Site and Surround+r~g Proper#res I Photograp~s of Pre Earthquake B~~Iding J_ Pra~ect Rendering K Pro~ect Plans S F b l/(c F tPiA1~tSHAREICOUNCI~tS7RPTIEQPC9700 WPD ,7anuary 21, 1998 15 1b ATTACHMENT A ~~ ` 3 f ~~ v ~ G City of Santa Monica Department of Pfann,ng and Camm~ndy Devefopmenf Planrnn~ and Zonmg Div~sian f310)45$-8341 APPEALFORM ~3me "!?,'zh.c.1 ~u.~~ q Addres~ ~ h r~~~ ., , ~~~; Contaet Person ~~ ~~ ~+-t Date Fded Rece~ved ~y ~ece~p# !Vo ~~. ~7 - ~~-- P~ ~s' ~h~~ ~ ~ ~~~.~ Tp 3i o~y ~~ ~~ 3 y C~ Phone r3 ~ ~ Pleass descr~be the pro~ect and dec~s~on to be ~ppealed . ~.~ ~ C~~Lcc~G~ ~ o( ~ ~T ~~ ~~' -`- ~C_E ~Cc-~__-~ '7~ ~.~ ~ r~.c..r.. ~~~`- ~ ~1~ ~~z.~ ~iG~~~~~ !~'2 ~_~~ /~~', - , . ~~ ~ C~ C~. f~~. ~~' C'' CJ f ~ase C~ur~ber ~'/ /~ ~ ~ ~~ AddresS ' ,~ ~~^ ~ ~r~_'v~~ b -, , s,!., i-' ~ ~ U rj r ~ ~~- ~- - v Apphcant ~-c~ ~=`l.~.(' ~ OrigEnal heanng Date ~~-~'~ a. f~`f ~ ,~ . ~ ~ ~~ ~~~v a Or~g~nal Retio~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ r'ti2 G-c.~! ~ ~-E"4 ~~~ , . - Please state the spec~fic reason(s} for the appeal ~~_ ~~ G~~-~~~~ r ! ~ Please provrde two self-addressed, stamped, fetter-sEZed er~velopes. ~, . • a~grtiatur~-_~-. ' ~ ~~'~~ vate / G~v~ ~~~ ~ `~ ~ - ~ ~ To City Councd Members 10-28-97 From Jerry Bass and Stephan~e BarbaneA tel / fax 310-451-334fi Re Appeal of Planning Commiss~on Approval of replacement of the Sea Castle Property t~nder #he Ea~thquake Ent~tlement Act of 1994 Gouncil members, We are appealing this pro~ect for the gaod of our neighbarhofld We request that each and ewery issue presen#ed below be addressed ~n the staff report tY~at goes before councif We aiso request notice and knowledge of all meet~ngs between the applieants andlor their representati~es and council m~mbers prior to this appeal heanng We request th~t thjs hearmg ba scheduled after No~ember 17th so that w~ may ha~e time to apprise our fellow members ofi the 5outh Beach Neighboriioad of #f~e heanng and reguest immed~ate natice of heanng date so that we may prepare oursef~es We are appeaimg the Planning Commission Actian to permit the Sea Castfe property ta be rebudt utiliz~ng #he earthquake reco~ery act entitlements on the foifowing grounds 1) The Earthauake Reco~erv Act ha~ been abused This profect qual~F~ed, ur~er the ~ 99~ Eart~quake ~rrtitlemer~ Act ta be ret~ab~t~tated Tt~ rehab~IRtat~on ot the Sea Castle rn its post earthqUake state was poss~ble b~t cost proh~b~t~ve so t~e prape~ty was allowed ta decay -- occupiec~ only by craminals, unt~l a f~re of unknowr~ or~g~n caused ~t to b~rn down It was negligence on the part af the owner, Dr. Braun, who did nvt secure ~is b~Et~Eng and who did not maintain a functional sprinkler system or+ s~te, and it was negligence on the part of the City which allowed the dangerous conditions to cantinue unabated for two year that caused tl~e preventable, non-earthquake relatQd fire to occur. Th~ fire was the ~lirect result of neal~qence - not the ear#hquake. The demolitiQn qf th~ S~ C~~tl~ w~$ tite ~lir~t ~esult o# the fire. Qnlv when the Sea . ~ fn the abser~ce of the fire no nlans to rehabilita#e the buildinp would e~er have been submitted tQ th~ City i~e~~us~ while te~ni~~lly pQssible it would harr~ been as~st qrohibitive #o rehabilitate the buildina in its uos# earthauake state. The fire should ~#~~~alify this pro~ect from the Earthquake Recovery Act because the building was no i~er abie to be rehabditated. The fire renderer~ the building irreparable. tt ~s wron4 ~at_[7r. Braun should now nrofit from his nec~liaence. The sale af his property is contingent upon secur~ng permds because market farces now make rebuilding from scratch a non-conform~ng use with sub-standard parking, possible The earthquake recavery act never ant~cipated that a pro~ect of this nature would be stafled fo take advantage of market forces ~~ - ~iJ