SR-8C (8)~ ~
P&Z:DKW:DB:DC20APL Santa Monica, California
Flanning Cammission Mtg: Auqust 19, 1992
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Occupancy Permit 91-020
Address;
Applicant:
Appe~ 1 rxnt :
INTRODUCTION
1620 Sroadway
Ronen Hacker
Mayar Ken Genaer
Action: Appeal of Zoning Administrator approval of Occupancy
Permit 91-020.
Recomm~ndation: Denial of appeal and upholding of approval of
Occupancy Permit.
Permit streamlining Expiration Date; Not Applicable.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 7~500 sq.ft. parcel located on the
south side of Braadway between 16th Street and 17th Street having
a frontage of 50 feet. Surrounding uses consist o~ a 2-story
retirement h~me/BCD {Broadway Commerciai} District to the north,
a Montessori School/BCD District to the south, a 1--stary sinqle
family house/BCD D~strict to the east and 3-story mixed use
retai~/residenti.al bua.lding/BCD District to the west, Existing
on-site uses include ccmmercial office uses rrhich are operating
without the required planning approvals.
Zoning District: BCD
Land Use District; Mixed Use
Parcel Area: 7,500 sq.ft. (50' X 150')
PROJECT DESCRTPTION
This fs an appeal of ~ccupancy Permit 91-020, which was ias~ed by
the Zoning Administrator on May 5, 1992 to permit the commercial
occupancy of seven residential units and the residential occupan-
cy of one unit ~n an 8-unit apartment buildinq which was removed
€rom the rental market via the E31is Act. Occupancy Pernrit 91-
020 was approved in con~unction with the approval of AA s1-111
for a change of use from residential to commercial, which wi~l be
of no further effect if th~s appeal is upheld,
- 1 -
C ~' 1 ~'
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Per Planning and 2oning staff interpretation, the proposed praj-
ect is consistent with tha Municipa2 Code and in conformity with
the General Plan as showri in Attachment A.
CE~A STATUS
The project i~ cateqorica~ly exempt per the C~ty af ~anta Monica
Guidelines far the Implementation of CEQA, c3ass 1(1).
RENT CONTROL STATi]S
C~earance is on fiZe indicating that the buildinq wa~ removed
from the rental market via the Ellis Act on August 34, 1990.
FEES
The project is not subject to any feeg other than the standard
application fee.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
~ecupancy Permits do not require pul~lic notification. Pursuant
to Code Section 9132.3, no public notice is required for the
appeal of an Occupancy Permit. However, a notice of the hearing
was pub~#.shed in the Santa Monica 4utlook not less than l0
cansecutive calenclar days priar ta the publ c hearing.
ANALYSIS
Background
Occupancy Permit 91-02o was approved by the Zoning Administrator
an May 6, ~992, in conjunction with Administrative Approval 92-
111 to permit a change af use from residential to commercial and
residential uses. The Zoning Administrator's approval was based
on the requirements of Code Section 9044.3(e) and Ordinance 1466
(CC5), which govern chanqes a€ use and re-occupancy of bui~dings
which have been withdrawn from the rental market, respectively.
Section 9044.3~e} states that:
(e) For any new use of an existing building or structure
such that the new use wil~ require parking spaces, parking
spaces in the number specified in Section 9044.4 sha~l be
pravided for the ent~.re parce3.
As nated in ths staff repart for "Interpretat~cn of Saotion
9044.3{e)," Plannfng and Zoning staff have consistently intar-
preted this code section to mean that if a hiqher m~mher of park-
ing spaces ~s required for the prvposed use than that which would
be required for the ~xisting use usinq current code standards,
then al~ uses on the site must be brouqht up to current parking
standards. Conversely, if a new use requires the same or fewer
.. 2 ..
l; s i ~ :;
parking spaces than the exiating use, the new use may ba approved
without any change in the existing nl~m~er o~ parking epaces.
In this instance, staff found that the prior resident~al u~e re-
quired the same num}~er of parking spaces under current require-
ments as the proposed mix of office and residential uses, as
follows:
USE PARKING SPACES REQU~RED FURSUANT
TO SI~KC SECTION 9044, 3(e)
8 1-2 bedraam 18 spaces minimum (2 spaces per
units existing unit plus 1 gusst gpace per 5
proposed to be units}
converted
4,664 sq.ft. of 18 spaces minimum (1 space per
office space from 300 square feet of office area
conversion of seven g~us above-mentioned residential
residential units, plus requirement}
one residential unit
Because the total number of spaces required by the current Zoning
Ordinance did not increase as a resu~t of the proposal, the proj--
ect remained "grandparented" for a total e~ a parking spaceg in-
lieu of current requirements. Additianal].y, becauge ane ur~it was
proposed to remain residential, it remained grandparented ~or 1
parking space in-lieu of 2 required by code. The result was a
total of 8 parking spaces in-lieu of I7 requir~d by code (1~ re-
quired for the new affice use and 1 grandparented space required
for the residentia~ unit whi.ch is proposed tv rema3n
residentia~).
Ord~.nance 1456 states that "an vccupancy permit for cQm?!!~rcial
occupancy of a property or any rental unit therein shall be gran-
ted by the Pianning Director" if the proposed occupancy is in
conforiaance with the General P~an and Zoning 4rdinance. In this
instance, the proposed use of specialty office on the ground
floor and general office use an the second floor was found to be
in conformity with the permitted uses in the BCD District, and
tha existing parking met the Zoning Ordinance parking require-
ment~ for a change of use, as nated above. The proposed a~ix of
res~.dential and commercial uses is also consistent with the goal.s
outlined in the Land Use and Circulatian Element af the General
Plan.
Ordinance 1455 specifies further findings which must be made for
residenti.al re-occupancy af a building remavad from the rantaA
market via the Ellis Act. On the occupancy permit application,
the applicant stated that the owner would be the only peraon to
occupy unit H~ which was ta rema~n residential. This was consis-
tent with Ordinance 1456, which allaws residential owner occupan-
cy o€ apartn~ent un~ts re-occupied a€ter reinoval from the rental
market via the El~~:s Act.
- 3 -
~ i~ ~ ~
Because the proposa3 conformed to Zoning Ordinance and Ordinance
1466 requirements, Planning and Zaning gtaff approved the ocau-
pancy permit and related administrative agproval. However, the
occupancy permit was appealed by Mayor Ren Genser based on the
assertion that the proposal is not in conformity with the parking
reqtiirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Enforcement
After the appeai of Occupancy Permit 91-020, staff received a
compla~nt indicating that the subject property was be~ng used for
commercial purposes. A s~.te inspection by staff ~-nd examination
of Rent Control and Business License records indicate that the
praperty has contained commercial uses since October of 1987,
three years prior to the August 14, 1990, Ellis withdrawal date.
On July 9, ~.992, notice uras delivered to all ocoupants af the
subject property, including the applicant~ that existinq busi-
nesses must be removed with3n lo working days and must not return
until the final decision on Occupancy Permi.t 91-02D ~.s rendered.
Yt appears thnt at least three of the rasidsntial ux~its on the
property are currently uti~ized for ca*+m~rcia~ purpases without
having obtained either administrative approval for a chanqe of
use or an occupan~y perm~t. In addition, a sign exists on tha
property stating "Office Space for Lease." Staff doea not recom-
mend denia3, of the current application based on these illeqal
uses because the the propasa~ current~y before the Planning Com-
mission conforms to Zoninq ordinance requirements and the City
Attorney's office has advised Planning that the decision to ap-
prove or dany the pro~ect should be based solely on the merits of
the proposal. Planning staff is working w~th the City Attorney's
affice on enforcement and possible prasecution regarding the pre-
vio~s violaticns, and will aontinue to do ~o regardless of the
eutcome af this appeal.
Conclusion
The occupancy permit originally granted by the Zoning Admin~stra-
tor is in conformance with the Zon~nq Ordinance, the General
Plan, and ~rdinance 1466, and therefare staff recommends that the
Planning Cammission deny the appea~ uphold the approval of Occu-
pancy Permit 91-020.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Ca~?~ission deny the appsa~ af
Occupancy Permit 91-020 and uphald the findings and aonditions
contained in the original. permi.t.
Prepared by: Drummond Buckley, Assistant Planner
Attachments:
A. Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
B. Notice of Public Hearing
C. ~cupancy Permit 91-020 Determ~nation
- 4 -
C; " 15
D, Administrativa Approval g~-ill Determination
E. Appas~ Form
F. Photographs of Site and Surroundfng Proparties
[NOTE: As of 8/12/92, the applicant had not provided sta~f
with multiple copies of the project's lloor plan showing
existing and proposed uses, although he and hia attorney
were adv~sed to do so on 8/4/92. Planninq maintaina two
Pi~e copies of the plan which are availabla for review.]
_ g _
~' ~J ~ ^
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Land Use
Category Element Municipal Code Pro~ect
Permitted Use Mixed Use Mixed Use Mixed Use
Dwelling Uni.ts Multi- No max. 1
family
Parking Space Number N/A "Grandparented" 8 in-lieu
for 8 spaces ~n- of 17 req'd
lieu of 18 gpaces.
- 6 -
~ ~' ~!
( ~,
~~
dFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLYC HEARING
Sub~ect of Hearing: Appeal of Occupancy Permit 91-020
1f20 Braadway, SCD (Broadway Commercial
Districtj
Applicant: Ron~n Hacker
Appellant: Ken Genser
A Public Hearing will be held by the Planning Commissian on
the Pollowing request:
Appeal af Oc~upancy Permit 91-020, which, in can~unction
with Administrative Approval 91-111, allawed the
re-occupancy of a formar residential rental praperty remaved
fro~ rent cantrol via E1~3s Act pracedures, to germtt uge of
one unit by the owner for residential purpoaes and the
remaining seven units fflr aammercial purposes.
TTME: WEDNESDAY, AUGUST Z9, 1992 AT 7:00 P.M.
LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER, ROOM 213, CITY HALL, 1fi85 MAIN
STREET, SANTA MONICA, CALxFORNIA
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comments.
Interested pe~sons may comment at th~ hearinq, or by writing
a letter.
Letters should be addre6sed to:
Planning Divisian, Raom ~11
~685 Main Street
Santa Monfca, Cal~fornia 9040~
Attn: D. Buckley, Assistant Planner
Infarmat~ian an any application may be obtained from the
Pl.anning Divisian at the address above or by callinq (213)
458--8341.
The meet~ng facility is handicapped accessible. If you have
any special needs such as sign language interpreting, pleas~e
cantact the Office of the Disabled at 458-8701.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section f5D09(b), if
this matter is subsequently chal~enged in Court, the
challenge may be limited to only thase issues raised at the
Pub~ic Hearing described ~.n this natice, or in written
correspondence deli~ered to the City of Santa Monica at, ar
priar to, the Public Hearing.
Esto es una notici.a de una audencia publica para revisar
agplicaciones propaniendo de~arro~.Io en Santa Maniaa, Si
deseas mas informacion, favor de llamar a E~sa Gonzalez ex~
3.a Division de Plantigicacion al numero (213} 458-8341.
~ . -; ~ ~,
_ ~ . ~,
~ ~ ~, f ~ ~~
CITY Of BP,NTA MOI~EICA/PJ.AHNINa DIVISION
OCCUPP-NCY PERHIT DETERMINl1TION
Case Hurnber: DC 91-D20
Address: 1620 Sroadway
Zankng: SCD
Proposed Use/Project: Residential/Commercial
Applioant: Ronen Hacker
(iENERAL PLAN ic HONICIpAL CODE CONFQRM7INCE
Category
General Plan MuniciQaZ Code Project
Permitted Use: Mixed Use ~Mixed Use Mzxed
Use
parking: N/A "Grandparented'~ for B spaces
in-lieu of 18 spaces.
chanqe aP use wou~d require
a total of 17 spaces.
Replac~ment Requirement: None required.
Comm~nts/conciusion: The applicant propases to owner-occupy one
Z-bedroam unit anci to canvert the remaining 7 units to commercial
use. The Occugancy Permit application meets all re~ative code
standards and therefore merits approval.
This upplica~ioa far an occupancy pormit is:
Denied
Subject ta separate administrative or discret~onary revaew.
% GYanted r.rith the foliowing findings and conditions:
BIHDINGS:
2. The propoaed use is in compliance witri Ordinance Number 1466
(CCS) and nny ~uch City Ordinance that app~y in that proposad
occupancy con~ists ot the property awner and that a daed
restriction shall be recarded stipu~atinq complianca with
Section 1801 (f} of the City Chaptar griar ~a isauancQ of
Certfricate of oacupancy,
2. The proposed accupancy conior~as ta the Genere2 Flan in that
the multi-family reaidentinl use will not ba alterad until a
bui],dir-q permit for an approvad rasidantial raplacsmant
*~rn~t+rt f g iaa~~P_d.
3. The propased occupancy confcrms ta the Comprehansive Lat~d Uee
and Zoninq ordinan~a in that the axistinq muiti-famiZy
residantia~ usa wiZl nct ba ait~rsd untii a buildinq perait
ror an npprovsd reaidential replacement pro~act i^ issued.
4. No more than one unit on th~ proparty will be accupied by
owners of tha propertyl.~ar residantial ~urpoaeg~ Ormers may occupy other
iunita for co~erciel puronses,
5. The Rant Control Soard haa cartifiad that tha ownar haa ~
complied wi~h ths raquiram~nts ast lorth !n ths Govarnmant
Code sect~arfs 7060.2 and 7050.4 and with ~pplicabls
- 1 -
'Ll ~ c. O
regulntion promulgated by the Rent Control Baard in a
determinAtion dated 4/16/92.
CONDITYONe: f r reaidential purpose~. ~'~
~
Fnmily members of the
1. Only one unit may be owner occupie ,,
owner may res~de in other units: houevar, they aannot have ~.-
any ownership interest in the units and ~annat pay rent a 8~her un-
defir-ed in Seetion 1801(f) ot the City Charter. Ree ~8y be
Restriction is required and a~ust be recordad refleetinq thi _
i
condition. Proof of recordation must be provided to th s_
°~erc
occugied
Plannfng Division be_ore this determination wi~l becom regardles
ef f ective. of
2. Plans for final design, 2andscaping, screening, trash °""ers~iF
enclosuras, and s~gnage, where appiicable, shall be subject
to raview and approval by Che Archltectural Review Soard.
3. within ten {10) days of transmittal oS Planninq Dfvisien
approval, project applieant sria~l sign and return a copy of
the Occupancy Permit determina:tiart prapared by the Planning
Division, ~greerng to the conditions af agproval and
acknowledging that failure to comply with such conditions
shall constitute grounds far revocatiot~ af tha permit
approval. Faxlure to comply with this condition shall
constitute grounds far permit revocation, pursuant ta Sectian
9zsa.a ~sr~sc~ .
-------------------------------------------------------
Determination by: ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ate:
~. Kenyon webstar
Acting 2oninq Adrninistrator
Drummond Buckley, Assistant Planner
Case Planner
~~ __ ~
~~
Date : ~ / . I ;
~ •
i agree to the aDove conditians o! approvai and acknowledge tbat
taflure to campiy xith ahy a~d all aoaditfang shali constitvta
qrounds for potentiai revocation of the permit approval.
~ ~ll~ ~-~ov, HrLckwr S~tS'~`~2
Signature Print Name Date
~05~~71 ~8
Briver's License Number
track/oc2Ddet
- 2 - ~
~ 4~ ~
GITY OF SI~HTA MOHICA/PLR~NfNG DIYISION
A~IikISTiL4T7VE APPR4YAL DET~RNINA7I4M
Case Number: AA 91-111
Location/Zone: 1620 Braadway/BCD
Lot Dimensions and Area: 50'X150` (7,500 sq ft }
Proposed Project: Conversior+ from resadeRtia7 use to s~ecfa~ty
and general office use
Appiicant: Ronen Hacker
RENT COiVTROL STA1'US: Rent Cantrol Clearance For+n on file
PREVi0U5 RELfVANT PERMITS• OC 91-020
MUNICIPA! CODE CONFORMANCE
Category
Hcrrticfpat Code Project
Perm~tted Use M,xed Use Mixed Use
Dwell~ng Units Na limit ~f proj 1
meets F.A.R re-
quirements
Parking Space Number S, per existing non- $
conform~ng settion
of code
Gomments/Conclusion The sub~ect parcel currently contains a 2-stpry, 8-unit
apartment building which has been w~thdrawn from the rental market pursuant to
the Eli~s Act Yhe applicant propases to con~ert ali b~t one unit to
specialty and general off~ce uses Unit no H, as shown in plans dated Mfay
15, i990, will remain as a 2-bedrnam reszdenttal un~t for the owner. An
~ccupancy Perin~E {QC 9t-02Q) has been obtained for this purpose
The 8 existing 1 and 2-bedroam units are served by 8 existinq on-site parktr~4
spaces, alt~ough the current Zaning Ordinance would reqaire a total of l8
spaces As no s~gn~ficant remodel~rtq or demo]~tton is to occ~r, and there is
to be no add~tional square footage canstructed, the site wi11 rema~n
"qrandparented" for a totai of & rn-~aeu of 18 req~~red par~Cir~q spates. The
proposed change of use would result in 4,663 93 square feet of offTCe use,
which, utilizing Lhe 1•300 park~ng ratia, would be required to have a total of
l6 parking spaces. The residential remalns "grandparented" for a requirement
of one space. 7herefore, tt~e total num6er of required spaces for the proposed
CMange of u5e is 17 parking spaces, which is below the 1B spaces far w~ich the
site 95 "grandparented "
Tfi e propased specialty and generai offite uses are permitted in the BCD
pistrict, prouided that the general affice uses are nat 7ocated oR thQ ground
FTnnr
Th4s apgllcatton for Adm9nistrative Approval ts•
f3an i ¢d
Sub~ect to separate administrative ar discretionary review.
X Granted wlth the fo11ow1ng f4ndings and natations;
-1-
i~;; ~ ~
, ,_ ~
F1NDINGS:
1 The proposed development conforms precisely to the development stzndards
for the area and the Santa Monica Mun9cipal Code and Genera] P]an.
The prapased deve~upment does not requlre discretionary review or appro~al
as outlined in the Municipal Code.
N4TATIQHS OF ~UHICIPAL CQ~E AND OT~ER REQUIRE~EHTS:
The rights granted by this Admtnistratiye Ap~rova] sha7~ be effective on2y
when exercised xi#hin one (1) year from the d:Le the approvai ~s granted
by the Zoning Admfnistrator 7his t9me ~i~it may be extended by the
Ioning AdmiAistrator for good cause. for a period ta not exceed six (b)
months upon written request by the applic=nt In the czse of a
construct9on proJect, a bulidfng permit must be obtafned priar to Lhe
expiration of th~s approva3 in order to exercise the rights granted by
this approval. In the case of a change af use, a business license ~ust be
obtai~ed and the use must be in operat~on prior to the expiration of thvs
approval. App]icant is on notice that any extension may not be gr~ated ~f
development standards relevant to the pro~ect have changed since pro~ect
approval
- The Admin~strat~ve Approval shall be subject to compliance with the
~rovfsfons of Chapter 5 of the Mun~cipa7 Ca~e and applicable provfstans of
other City ordinances
- Th7s approva~ is for those plans dated 5/15/91, a ~apy af which shall be
maintained in the files af the tity Planning Division. Pro~ect
develcpment shall be cons~stent with such plans Hinor amendments to the
plans shall be subject ta approval by the Zaning Adminlstrator
- Plans far f~nal design, landscaping, screening, trash enclosures, and
signage, where appl~tahle, shall be subaect to review and approval b~ Lhe
ArC~itectural Review Board.
- Appl~cant is advised that pro~ects in the Cal~fornia Coastal Zone may need
approva3 of the La3ifarnia Loastal Comnissian prior to issuance of any
bu#id~rtg permfts by the GTty af Santa MonTCa Appl~cant is responsi67e
for obtaining any such permits
- Withi~ ten (i0} days of tran5mittal o# Planning D~v~s~on approval, proJect
applicant shall sign and return a copy of the Adm~n9strati~e Approval
determtnatian prepared by the P3ann3ng Divisian, agree~ng to the
condi#ions af approval and acknowledg~ng that failure to comply with such
conditiaAS Shall constitute grounds for patential re~ocation of the permit
appro~al. fa3lure to comp3y with this condition shail constitate grnunds
for potent9a) permii revozation, pursuant to 5ect~on 9134,4 ~S~Mt}.
Determination by: ~-!if ~,r,r,~,.._ ~~ate: s~~t1
0. Kenyorl Mfebster r f
,4cting Zoning Administrator
Case Planner. Orummond Buckley, Ass't Planner Date:
EFFECTIVE DAT~OF ACT10N:
5~~~~`'~
EXPIRliTI' DAT,E ~1F ,4CTt01~
~-S'/93~ _
LENGTI~ OF~ANY POSSiBLE EX~ENS~qNi OF EXPIRI4TIOH DATE:
~
-x-
L+~ ~?3
1~yr~e ta tho abow ccndltians of
caapty xith any and ~11 condltlcns
revocatSo of tha permit app~oval.
~i fY/~.C` _- -
Signature `
.~~ ~] ~ -4'~ ~C.rl ~-2
Drint name here
TRACK/AA91111
aafo7~gz
approva] ind ackno~rl~4qe that failu~+ ta
st~atl canstitut• yrounds for potential
5'1 S~q2
aate
[D r9~] r~~r
Drivers L~cense Number
-3-
~ ~~ ?_ ~
~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~
~'
~
~
Subject Property. ~
1520 ~rnadway
View of Subject Propertv across
-zntersect~on of 17th and Broadwav
~
~ tti F
rv_ ~ ~ ~
Westerly view down BraadwaV.
• .' 7 ~
4~ L~ .~
S~b~ect Propert~=:
1620 Broadwav
Southerly view down 17th Street.
~ _~ ~ ~
Easterly v~ew down Bxaadway.
r„1
~
Frant view o~ Subject ~roperty
rand ad~acent parkiny lot. ~'
r__~
~~
~~ J
fY~
Subject Prqperty:
~620 Broadway
A T~'A~~~~' C
v., ~~
PLANNINC~ COMMISSION
STAT$MFNT OF OFFICIAL !-CTI4N
PRdJECT
CASE NUMBER: Appeal of Zoning Administratar Approval for
Occupancy Permit 9i-D20
IACATION: 1620 Broadway
APPLICANT: Ronen Hacker
CASE PLANNER: D~}mmQnd BuCkley, Assistant P].anner
REQUEST: To permit ths conversion of an exiating apar--
ment building from residential to commercial
use
CEQA STATUS: The pro~ect is categorically exempt per the
City of Santa Monica GuideZines for the Im-
plementation of CEQA, alass 1(1).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
9/30~92 Date.
X
Approved based on the following findings and
subject to the canditions below.
Denied.
Other. Technical Denial based on failure ta car-
ry a mation with a minimum of four votes. Zoning
Adaninistrator approval upheld.
EFFECTIVE DATE(S~ OF ACTION(S) IF NOT APPEALED:
lOrl~/92 Appeal of 4C 91-D20
FINDIN[~S:
1. The proposed use is in campliance with Ordinance N;?mher ~466
(CCS) and any such City Ordinance that apply in that proposed
occupancy consists of the property owner and that a deed
restri.ction shall be recorded stipulating complfance with
Section 1801 {f) o~ the City chapter prior to issuance of
certificate of occupancy.
2. The proposed occupancy confarms to tha General Plan in that
the multi-family residential use wi11 not be altered until a
building peranit for an approved residentia], replaaement
praject is issued.
- 1 -
.: ~ ,~ ~!
3. The proposed occupancy conforms to the Comprehensive I,~nd Use
and Zon~ng Ordinance in that the ex~sting multi-family
residentia~ use will not be altered until a buildinq permit
for an approved reaidential replacement praject is ~ssued.
4. No mere than one unit on the praperty will be occupied by
owners of the property.
5. The Rent C~ntrol Board has csrtified that the owner has
complied with the requirementa set forth in the Gavernment
Code Sections 7060.2 and 7060.4 and with applicable
regulation promulgated by the Rent Control Board in a
determination dated 4/16/92.
CONDITIONBi
1. Only one unit may be owner accupied. Family members of the
owner may reside in other units; however, they cannot have
any ownershig ~nterest in the units and cannot pay rent as
defined in Sectian 1841(f) af the City Charter. A Deed
Restriction is required and mug~ be recorded refleating this
conditicn. Proof af recordation must he provided to the
Planning Division before this determination will becoma
effective.
2. Plans for final design, ~andscaping, screening, trash
enclosures, and signage, where applicable, shall be subject
to review and approval by the Architectural Review Baard.
3. Within ten (10} days of transmitta~ af Planning Division
approval, pro~ect applicant shall sign and return a copy af
the Oacupancy Permit deter~aination prepared by the Planning
Divis~on, agreeing to the conditions of approvai and
acknowledging that failure to comply with such conditions
shali constitute grounds far revacation of the permit
approval. Failure to comply with this condition sha].1
canstitute grounds for permit revocation, pursuant to Section
9134.4 (SMMC).
VdTE ON MOTION T4 DENY APPEAL AND UPHOLD DETERMINATION:
Ayes: Mechur, Polhemus, Rosenstein
Nays: Gi].pin, Morales
Abst~in:
Absent: O'Connor, Pyne
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not sub~ect
the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive
dinance, the time within which judicial
must be sought is governad by Code of
~094.6, which provision has been adopted
Municipal Code Section 1400.
to further appeal under
Land Use and Zoning Or-
review of this decision
Civil Procedure Section
by the City pursuant to
- 2 -
., ~' ~ 1
I hereby ctrtify that tbis Statement
ly reflaats the linal d~t.rmination
the City of Banta Monica.
signature
Ralph Mechurr Chairperson
Please Pr~nt Name and Title
date
I hereby aqree to the abov conditions o~ approval and
acknowledqo tbat failurs ~o comply ~ith suah oanditions ahall
canstituta qrounds tor potentiai revoCatifln o~ the permit
approval.
AppYicant's Signature
Print Nama and Title
PC/tempstoa
DKW;bz
- 3 -
o! Olfiaisl ~ation aaaurato-
of th• Plsaniaq Commission of
~! ~r
A~'~C~~I~' ~
v_ ,~
(5} Except Tfrith prior authorization of the Presiding
Officer, the d~strzbutzon af literature, of whatever nature or
kind, is pr~hibited.
(e)
P~rsons Authorized t~ be Within Rail.
No person
except Cauncilmembers and City Staff and recognized
representatives of the news media sha~l be permitted within the
rail w~thout the consent af th~ Presiding Officer.
(f} Enforcement of Decorum, The Chief af Police or such
member or members of the Police Department as he ar she may
designate, shall b~ S~rg~ant At Arms of the City Councii and
shall carry out al~ orders qiu~n by the Presiding Officer through
the City ~Zanager for the purpose of maintaining order and decorum
at City Council mee~zngs. Any Councilmember may mave to require
the Presiding Officer to enforce the ruies and the affirmative
vo~e of a ma~ority of the City CaunciZ sha~l require him or her
to do so.
RUi,E 19. VOTING PROCEDURE.
Any vflte of the City Council, including a roll cal3 vote,
tttay be registered by the members by answering "Aye" ~"or an
affirmative vote or "No" for a negative vote upon his or her name
being ca~led by the City Clerk. Unless a member of the City
Cauncil states ~hat he or she a.s not voting, silenc~ shall be
r~cord~d as an affirmative vote.
RULE 20. DISQUALIFICATI~N F~R CONFLICT ~F INTEREST.
Any Counciimember who is disqualified from voting an a
particular matter by reason of a cr~nflict of a.nterest shal~
publicly state or have the Pre~~.ding Officer state the nature of
- 22 -
City of .
5 anta Mon~ca
comm~ty and Econor~rc aeve~apnent pep~arb~t
PfanMrg ~nd 7onlnp Qlriaon
(2t3) 458-B341
A~PEAL ~aRl~
~E; ~tpp.pp ~e F~d ~-ctober 9, 1992
Reoe"~ed b~ -'~ ~~--
~ ~
~ KEN GENSER
p~~ City Councii Office, Rao~n 200, City Hall, 1b85 Main St., Santa Monica
Co~t Pe~son Phone ( 31U } 458-8201
P~9aSB d9satb9 tlae pro~ect and d9d8an b be a~a!9d
Occupancy permit far residential/comnercial use. This is an
~~nwal nf the Pl~nnina C.~romission's denial of mv anDeai of t#le
Zanina A~minis~rator's determ~r~at~on.
~ N~ Occupancy Permit #91-020
Addr~@S~ 162f1 Rr~a~wav
AppC~ Ronen HaG~g~'
~nalhearrgda~e ~of appea~ } Sep~ember 20, 1992
Qn~n~l~?n {B~ Zenina Admi~istra~p~) ~1av 6. ~992
Pieaae sta~e ihe ~ n~ao~(s) iur ~e appeal -
The praposed occu~ancy is not irt car~formance with the Cort~ rehensive
Land Use and Zoning Ordinance with resp~ct ta parking.
it ~d~ponil ap~s ~s ~wad~d, w~ 6~ o{ lona.
D~le
~~ 1 ~ : ~
A~"TAC~NIEN~' E
'~~ ~J