SR-7-A (56)
f
LUTM:PB:D~~:SHW/all18.pcword.plan
Ccuncll Mtg: July 9, 1991
. z~~
San~a Mon~ca, Ca~~~ornla
i
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City staff
SGBJECT: Appeal of Two Planning Commission Conditions of
Approval (No. 15 and No. 39) for Cond~tional Use Per~it
91-012 to Permit the Construction of an Eight t:'nit
Residential Condominium Project at 1l38-1144 Yale
street.
INTRODt:CTION
Conditional Use Permit 91-0l2 and vesting Tentative Tract Map
50249 were approved on May 8, 1991 by the Planning commission to
construct a two story, eight unit residential condominium project
at 1138-1144 Yale street.
The applicant has appealed two
conditions of approval: 1) Condition No. 15 regarding compliance
with the Transportation Management Plan and 2) Inclusionary Unit
Condition No. 39 regarding compliance with the inclusionary
housing requirements of the Housing Element of the General Plan
of the City of Santa Monica. This report recommends that the
City Council, in a two part action; deny the appeal of Condition
No. 39 regarding inclusionary housing as approved by the planning
Commission, and uphold the appeal to delete Condition No. lS
regarding the Transportation Management Plan.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 91-012
and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50249 on May 8, 1991 to permit
the construction of a two story, eight unit residential
- 1 -
7-A
JUL :1 i991
condomin~~m proJect at 1138-1144 Yale Street (Attachment B). On
May 7, 1991, staff received a letter from the applicant's
~epresentative contesting staff proposed conditions No. 15 and 39
(Attachment C and D). Staff evaluated the applicant's request
and the Plann~ng Commission mainta~ned the inclusionary housing
cond~tion as proposed, and made minor modifications to the
remaining conditions in question (Attachment E) .
Applicant's Appeal
The applicant has appealed Planning Commission Condition No. 15
and No. 39 (Attachment A). Staff is recommending that Condition
No. 15 be deleted as residential projects are not proposed to be
included in the proposed fee structure of the Draft
Transportation Management Plan.
The applicant's representative contends that revision of the
City's Housing Element is necessary to include a 30% inclusionary
housing requirement in place of the 15% requirement referenced in
the existing Housing Element to comply with the Element's
Inclusionary Housing Program. The representative also contends
that the adoption of Ordinance No. 1519 failed to satisfy the
procedures set forth in state housing laws (Government Code
Section 9121. 6, et sec.) for proper amendment of the Housing
Element. The applicant's representative also requested that
Condition No. 39 be amended to comply with Program 12 as
constituted in Resolution No. 7385 and with Ordinance No. 1448
which the representative contends "...properly implements Program
12 in its present form.", (see Attachment C). Based on this
- 2 -
contentlon, the apolicant's representative ~s requestlng that
Condit~on No. 39 be amended to require the developer to provide
15% of the nine proposed un~ts, or one affordable unit, or to
comply with the In-lieu fee schedule as set forth in Ordinance
No. l448.
The City Attorney has indicated that both Ordinance No. 1448 and
No. 1519 are lawful and consistent with State planning
regulations. Unless amended, both the Planning Commission and
Council are obligated to comply with both ordinances. In
addition, under provisions of state planning law, charter cities
such as Santa Monica are not required to maintain consistency
between the general plan and zoning, and even if such consistency
were required, the inclusionary requirements are not part of the
Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, the City is in the process of
amending the Housing Element. These amendments will address the
Program 12 inclusionary housing issue.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is a difference in the inclusionary housing fees based upon
the applicable ordinance. ordinances 1519 and l448 have
different respective in-lieu fees of $15.65 and $5.07 per gross
square foot. Both are adjusted monthly based upon the Consumer
Price Index (CPI) fluctuations. Based upon 14,702 square feet,
the Ordinance 1519 fees are estimated at $230,086.30 and
Ordinance 1448 fees are estimated at $74,539.14. The difference
in fees between both ordinances is $l55,547.l6.
- 3 -
RECOMME:-IDAT:ON
It ~s respectfully recomr..ended that the City council: deny the
appeal of Condition No. 39 regarding inclusionary housing as
approved by the Planning Commission, and uphold the appeal to
delete Condtlon No. 15 regading the Transportation Management
Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Appeal of Conditional Use Permit 91-0l2 dated 5/l2/91.
B. Statement of Official Action for CUP 91-012 and VTTM 50246
dated 5/8/91.
C. Letter from Lawrence & Harding, Inc. to staff dated
5/7/91-
D. Staff Report Memorandum to Planning Commission dated
5/1/91.
E. Supplemental Staff Report Memorandum to Planning-
Commission dated 5/8/9l.
prepared by: D. Kenyon Webster, planning Manager
Susan White, Assistant Planner
Planning Division
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
SMW/PC/all38
07/02/91
- 4 -
Ci tv 0 f
Santa Monica
Co..,m...ilty ar-<:l ::~'1()"'lC JevelOOl"1enl Deoartmenl
Planning and ZonIng Olv~cn
1213,4588341
APPEAL FORM
A'--II-(l&
Date F,ied
Received by
Rerelpt No
5/2.\ /~ \
E I -, Q\ C 7
S.w
FEE $100 00
....ame Stark Fanuly TrJSt c/o Lawrence & ?.armn';1
Address 1250 Sum Street, :.!300, Santa r-bnica, Cahfonua 90401
Ccntact Person Kenneth L. Kuthcer Phone (213) 393-1007
Please descnbe!he project and declSlOn to be appealed Tl"-.1.S proJect 1.S a nme-urut condamn.1.UI'" pro~ect
supported by :11.d-C1.ty Ne1.~hbors. The ?ro]ect was approved on May 8, 1991 by the
Planru..Il9 Cum\1SS.1.on. The Stark Farruly Trust hereby anneals the l.rupositJ..on of COP Cond..1.t~on
Nos. 15 and 39. The Stark Fanuly Trust does not a5'P,€al the aP9roval of Vestmg
Tentat1.ve Tract ~p No. 50249, which becarre effechve on May 20, 1991.
Case Number Cl.;"'P~. 91-0l2
Address 1138-1144 VAle Str~t
Applicant Stark Farru.lv Trust
OngmaJ heanng date ~.ay 8 r 1991
Onglnal actIOn ~y 8, 1991
Please state the specific reason(.) for the appeal See the attached letter to the Planning CatrniSS.1.OIl fran
Lawrence & Hardln9 dated May 7, 1991. The Stark Family Trust rontends that CUP
Condition No. 15 should be deleted in its entirety; the St-.<:Irk Fanuly Trust is not
satisf.1.ed Wlth the arrendrrents to this condition adopted by the Planning CU-ii:iLissian.
Furthe:nmre, the Stark Family Trust contends that Program l2 (Le., Resolution No. 7385)
a.'id Orfunance No. 1448 govem CUP Condition No. 39.
The Stark Fanu.ly Trust reserves the right to suupleID2I1t the basis for this appeal pnor
to and during the pub~c hearmg on this ~l.
Stark F~m:HY7 ~~ /(/~ - ~1bonaI space IS needed. usa back ot tonn
Sptute .' (U-L.:... 6;---~~~ 08. May 2lf 1991
~lVin Stark, trustee
PROJEC:'
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
~r";~!3ER: conditional t;se Permit 91-012, vest~ng Tenta-
tive Tract Map 50246
LOCATIO~: 1138-1144 Yale Street
APPLICANT: Stark Family Trust
CASE PLANNER: Susan White, Assistant Planner
REQUEST: Application for a Conditional Use Permit and a
Vesting Tentative Tract Map to permit the con-
struction of a two, 2 story, 9 unit residen-
tial buildings totalling 9 condominium units
on a 14,805 sq. ft. parcel in the R2 & R2A (Low
Density Multiple Family Residential) District.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
5(8/91
X
Date.
Approved based on the following findings and
subject to the conditions below.
Denied.
Other.
EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF ACTION(S) IF NOT APPEALED:
Case #CUP 91-012
5(22/9l
5/18/91
Case #VTTM 50246
EXPIRATION DATE(S) OF ANY PERMITS GRANTED:
5/22/93
5/l8/93
Case #CUP 9l-0l2
Case #VTTM 50246
LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATE(S)
8/22/93
5/18/96
Case #CUP 91-0l2
Case #VTTM 50246
- 1 -
T~NTAT:VE TRACT y~p FI~DINGS
1. The proposed subdivision, together with its prov~sion for
~ts des~gn and improvements, is consistent with applicable
general and specific plans as adopted by the City of Santa
Monica, ~n that it conforms to the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance for the R2 & R2A districts.
2. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of
development, in that it is a standard lot, able to accom-
modate the proposed structure while providing required
setbacks, lot coverage limitations and required parking
onsite.
3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density
of development, in that it is a parcel of 14,805 square
feet in the R2 zone and can accomodate 9 units.
4. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements
will not cause substantial environmental damage or sub-
stantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat, in that the project is an urban in-fill
development.
5. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement
will not cause serious public health problems, in that all
utilites are available.
6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements
will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public
at large, for access through, or use of, property within
the proposed subdivision, in that the City Engineer has
approved the tentative tract map and taken into account
the required easements and dedications.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
l. The proposed use is one conditionally permitted within the
subject district and complies with all of the applicable
provisions of the "City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land
Use and zoning Ordinance II standards, in that, as condi-
tioned, all required setbacks, lot coverage, building
height and parking requirements are met.
2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and
character of the district in which it is to be established
or located, in that this parcel is surrounded on one side
by single family residential district, on two sides by
multi-family residential district and on one side by
boulevard commercial district.
3. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of
land use being proposed, in that th& slope is not exces-
sive, all parking can be provided on-site, and adequate
open space is provided.
- 2 -
4. 7he proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses
presently on the subject parcel if the present land uses
are to remain, ln that the two exist~ng mUlti-family
structures are proposed to be demolished.
.'J. The proposed use would be compatible w~th existing and
permiss~ble land uses within the district and the general
area in wh~ch the proposed use is to be located, in that
the proposal will require Architectural Review Board ap-
proval to ensure that it is similar in scale to existing
and proposed dsvelopment in the area.
6. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and
public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed
use would not be detrimental to public health and safety,
in that the proposed use would not be detrimental to
public health and safety, in that all utilities are avail-
able to the site.
7. Public access to t::e proposed use will be adequate, in
that the site is sufficiently served by an existing
street.
8. The physical location or placement of the use on the site
is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the sur-
rounding neighborhood, in that buildings in the area are
three story mUlti-family residential and the project will
require Architectural Review Board approval to ensure that
it is similiar in massing and placement to the proposed
structure.
9. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives,
and policies of the General Plan, in that the project site
is located in a multiple residential land use element dis-
trict and complies with the applicable regulations.
10. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare,
in that all public utilites area available, and required
building code requirements will be enforced in the con-
struction of the building.
11. The proposed use conforms precisely to the applicable per-
formance standards contained in Subchapter 6, Section 9050
and special conditions outlined in Subchapter 7, Section
9055 of the City of Santa Monica comprehensive Land Use
and Zoning Ordinance, in that these Subchapters are not
applicable to new condominium developments.
12. The proposed use will not result in an overconcentration
of such uses in the immediate vicinity, in that the area
is zoned for multi-family residential construction, and
the subject proposal conforms in height and density to the
R2 zoning districts.
- 3 -
COtD:::O;IAL CSE ?E?1':'::' CONDITIC~S
P:'a~s
1. This approval is for those plans dated March 1, 1991, a
copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the city
?lanning Division. Project development shall be consis-
tent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in
these cond~tions of approval.
2. The Plans shall comply with all other provisions of Chap-
ter 1, Article IX of the Municipal Code, (Zon~ng Or-
dinance) and all other pertinent ordinances and General
Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica.
3. Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be sub-
ject to the review and approval of the Parking and Traffic
Engineer.
4. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval
by the Director of Planning. A significant change in the
approved concept shall be subject to Planning Commission
Review. Construction shall be in conformance with the
plans submitted or as modified by the Planning Commission,
Architectural Review Board or Director of Planning.
Architectural Review Board
5. Prior to consideration of the project by the Architectural
Review Board, the applicant shall review disabled access
requirements with the Building and Safety Division and
make any necessary changes in the project design to
achieve compliance with such requiremen~s. The Architec-
tural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular
attention to the aesthetic, landscaping, and setback im-
pacts of any ramps or other features necessitated by ac-
cessibility requirements.
6. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall en-
sure that all areas not covered by buildings, driveways,
and sidewalks are to be covered by appropriate landscaping
and that 50% of the unexcavated side yard setbacks shall
be adequately landscaped.
7. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash en-
closures, and signage shall be subject to review and ap-
proval by the Architectural Review Board.
8. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay
particular attention to the project's pedestrian orienta-
tion and amenities; scale and articulation of design ele-
ments; exterior colors, textures and materials; window
treatment; glazing; and landscaping.
- 4 -
9. The Architectural Review Board shall carefully review the
side bUilding elevations to ensure that an appropriate
trans~tion to adjacent structures is provided.
10. Construction period signage shall be subject to the
approval of the Architectural Review Board.
11. :::"'andscaping plans shall comply with Subchapter 5B
(Landscaping Standards) of the zoning ordinance including
use of water-conserving landscaping materials, landscape
maintenance and other standards contained in the
Subchapter.
12. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall
screened in accordance with SMMC section 9040.13-9040.15.
Refuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site
need, includ~ng recycling. The Architectural Review Board
in its review shall pay particular attention to the
screening of such areas and equipment.
13. No gas or electric meters shall be located within the re-
quired front or street side yard setback areas. The Ar-
chitectural Review Board in its review shall pay particu-
lar attention to the location and screening of such
meters.
l4. The ARB shall pay particular attention to the articulation
of the side building elevations to provide an appropriate
transition to adjacent structures.
Fees
l5. The City is contemplating the adoption of a Transportation
Management Plan which is intended to mitigate traffic and
air quality impacts resulting from both new and existing
development. The Plan will likely include an ordinance
establ ishinq mi tiqation requirements , including one-time
payment of fees on certain types of new development, and
annual fees to be paid by certain types of employers in
the City. This ordinance may require that the owner ot
the proposed proj ect pay such new development tees, and
that employers, where applicable, within the project pay
such new annual employer tees related to the City'S
Transportation Management Plan. Development applications
shall not be subject to the potential new development fee
if no ordinance implementing such fees has been adopted
prior to issuance of a building permit for the project.
16. 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 perm! t for the construction or
placement of the residential unit(s) on the subject lot,
per and subject to the provisions of Section 6670 et seq.
of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. .
Demolition
- 5 -
17. Until such time as t~e demol~tion is undertaken, and un-
less t~e stl~cture is currently in use, the existi~g
structure shall be ma~ntained and secured by boarding up
all openings, erectlng a securlty fence, and removing all
debris, bushes and planting that inhibit the easy surve~l-
lance of the property to the satisfaction of the Building
and Safety Off~cer and the Fire Department. Any landscap-
~ng material remaining shall be watered and maintained
until demol~t~on occurs.
:8. Unless otherwise approved by the Recreation and Parks De-
partment and the Planning Division, at the time of demoli-
tion, any street trees shall be protected from damage,
death, or removal per the requirements of Ordinance 1242
( CCS) .
19. 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.
20. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, applicant shall
prepare for Building Division approval a rodent and pest
control plan to ensure that demolition and construction
activities at the site do not create pest control impacts
on the project neighborhood.
21. No demolition of buildings or structures built prior to
1930 shall be permitted until the end of a 30-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 de-
molition shall be approved for 90 days from receipt of a
complete application for demolition, or upon the deter-
mination by the Landmarks Commission that the application
for landmark designation does not merit formal consider-
ation, whichever is sooner.
Construction
22 . Unless otherwise approved by the Department of General
Services, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable
during the grading and construction phase of the project.
23. Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways whiCh need
replacing or removal as a result of the project as deter-
mined by the Department of General Services shall be re-
constructed to the satisfaction of the Department of
General Services. Approval for this work shall be ob-
tained from the Department of General Services prior to
issuance of the building permits.
24. Vehicles hauling dirt or other construction debris from
the site shall cover any open load with a tarpaulin or
other secure covering to minimize dust emissions.
- 6 -
25. street trees ghall be maintained, relocated or provided as
req~ired in a ~anner consistent with the city's Tree Code
(Ord. 1242 CCS) , per the specifications of the Department
of Recreat~on and Parks and the Department of General Ser-
v lees. No street tree shall be removed without the ap-
proval of the Department of Recreation and Parks.
26. A construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by
the appl~cant for approval by the Department of General
Services prior to issuance of a building permit. The ap-
proved mitigation plan shall be posted on the site for the
duration of the project construction and shall be produced
upon request. As applicable, this plan shall 1) Specify
the names, addresses, telephone numbers and business
license numbers of all contractors and subcontractors as
well as the developer and architect; 2) Describe how de-
molition of any existing structures is to be accomplished:
3) Indicate where any cranes are to be located for erec-
tion/construction ~ 4) Describe how much of the public
street, alleyway, or sidewalk is proposed to be used in
conjunction with construction; 5) Set forth the extent
and nature of any pile-driving operations; 6) Describe
the length and number of any tiehacks which must extend
under the property of other persons; 7) Specify the na-
ture and extent of any dewatering and its effect on any
adjacent buildings; 8) Describe anticipated contruction-
related truck routes, number of truck trips, hours of
hauling and parking location; 9) Specify the nature and
extent of any helicopter hauling; 10) state whether any
construction activity beyond normally permitted hours is
proposed; ll) Describe any proposed contruction noise
mitigation measures; 12) Describe construction-period
security measures including any fencing, lighting, and
security personnel; 13) Provide a drainage plan; 14)
Provide a construction-period parking plan which shall
minimize use of public streets for parking; 15) List a
designated on-site construction manager.
27. A sign shall be posted on the property in a manner consis-
tent with the public hearing sign requirements which shall
identify the address and phone number of the owner and/or
applicant for the purposes of responding to questions and
complaints during the construction period. Said sign
shall also indicate the hours of permissible construction
work.
28. A copy of these conditions shall be posted in an easily
visible and accessible location at all times during con-
struction at the project site. The pages shall be lami-
nated or otherwise protected to ensure durability of the
copy.
Environmental Mitigation
29. Ultra-low flaw plumbing fixtures are required on all new
development and remodeling where plmnhinq is to be added.
- 7 -
(~aximum 1.6 gallon toilets and 1.0 gallon urinals and low
flo.... sho',.;er l,dad.)
X~scel:aneous CUP Conditions
3 Q. If any archaeological remains are uncovered during
excavat~on or construct~on, work ~n the affected area
shall be suspended and a recognized specialist shall be
contacted to conduct a survey of the affected area at
project's owner's expense. A determination shall then be
made by the Director of Planning to determine the sig-
nificance of the survey findings and appropriate actions
and requirements, if any, to address such findings.
31. Street and/or alley lighting shall be provided on public
rights of way adjacent to the project if and as needed per
the specifications and with the approval of the Department
of General Services.
32. Any lofts or mezzanines shall not exceed 99 square feet
unless appropriate required parking is supplied. Such
areas shall also not exceed 33.3% of the room below unless
compliance with the district's limits on number of stories
can be maintained.
33. No fence or wall within the required front yard setback,
inclusive of any subterranean garage slab and fencing or
railing on top thereof, shall exceed a height of 42" above
actual grade of the property.
34. A security gate shall be provided across the opening to
the subterranean garage. If any guest parking space is
located in the subterranean garage, the security gate
shall be equipped with an electronic or other system which
will open the gate to provide visitors with vehicular ac-
cess to the garage without leaving their vehicles. The
security gate shall receive approval of the police and
Fire Departments prior to issuance of a building permit.
Validity of Permits
35. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with
any conditions of approval of this permit, no further per-
mits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy
shall be issued until such violation has been fully
remedied.
36. Within ten days of Planning Division transmittal of the
statement of Official Action, project applicant shall sign
and return a copy of the Statement of Official Action pre-
pared by the Planning Division, agreeing to the Conditions
of approval and acknowledging that failure to comply with
such conditions shall constitute grounds for potential
revocation of the permit approval. By signing same, ap-
plicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights applicant
- 8 -
may possess regardlng said conditions. The signed State-
mer.t shall be returned to the Plann~~g Divislon. Fail~re
to corply with th~s condlt~on shall constitute grounds for
potent~al permit revocation.
37. This determination shall not become effective for a period
of fourteen days from the date of determination, or, if
appealed, until a final determination is made on the ap-
peal. Any appeal must be made in the form required by the
Zoning Administrator. The term of approval of this permit
shall explre two years from the permit's effective date,
unless a building permit has been issued for the project
prior to the expiration date.
38. within thirty (30) days after final approval of the proj-
ect, a sign.sha1l be posted on site stating the date and
nature of the approval. The sign shall be posted in ac-
cordance with the Zoning Administrator guidelines and
shall remain in place until a building permit is issued
for the project. The sign shall be removed promptly when
a building permit is issued for the project or upon ex-
piration of the Conditional Use Permit.
Inclusionary Unit Condition
39. The developer shall covenant and agree with the City of
santa Monica to the specific terms, conditions and
restrictions upon the possession, use and enjQyment of the
subject property, which terms, conditions and restrictions
shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder's
Office as a part of the deed of the property to ensure
that three affordable unites) is (are) provided and main-
tained over time and through subsequent sales of the prop-
erty. An inclusionary requirement of thirty percent of
the units shall apply, of which at least twenty percent
shall be affordable to households not exceeding sixty per-
cent of the the (HOD) Los Angeles County median income,
with the balance of the inclusionary units affordable to
households with incomes not exceeding loot of the (HOD)
Los Angeles County median income, expending not over 30%
of monthly income on housing costs, as specified by the
Housing Division of the Department of Community and
Economic Development.
This agreement shall be executed and recorded prior to
approval of the Final Map. Such agreement shall specify
1) responsibilities of the developer for making the
unites) available to eligible tenants and 2) responsibili-
ties of the City of Santa Monica to prepare application
forms for potential tenants, establish criteria for
qualifications, and monitor compliance with the provisions
of the agreement.
OWner shall provide the City Planning Division with a
conformed copy of the recorded agreement prior to approval
of the Final Map_
- 9 -
This prov~sion is intended to satisfy the inclusionary
hous:~g requ~~e~ents of the Housing Ele~ent of the Ge~eral
Plan of the city of Santa Mon1ca. Developer may satisfy
the obligations created by this Agreement by demonstrating
~o the D~rector of Plann~ng compliance with Ordinance 1519
(CCS) I which provides implementation standards for t~is
program.
Scecial Condition
4:]. The front yard trellis shall not proj ect more than 30"
into the required 20' front yard setback.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CONDITIONS
1. All off site improvements required by the City Engineer
shall be installed. Plans and specifications for off site
improvements shall be prepared by a registered civil en-
gineer and approved by the City Engineer.
2. A subdivision improvement agreement for all off site im-
provements required by the City Engineer shall be prepared
and a performance bond posted through the City Attorney's
office.
3. The tentative map shall expire 24 months after approval,
except as provided in the provisions of California Govern-
ment Code Section 66452.6 and Sections 9380-9382 of the
Santa Monica Municipal Code. During this time period the
final map shall be presented to the City of Santa Monica
for approval. No building permit for the project will be
granted until such time as the final map is approved by
the santa Monica City Council.
4. In submitting required materials to the Santa Monica En-
gineering Division for a final map, applicant shall pro-
vide a copy of the approved statement of Official Action.
5. Prior to approval of the final map, Condominium Associa-
tion By-Laws (if applicable) and a Declaration of CC & R's
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The
CC & R's shall contain a non-discrimination clause as
presented in Section 9392 (SMMc) and in the case of con-
dominiums, contain such provisions as are required by Sec-
tion 9l22E (SMMC).
6. The developer shall provide for payment of a Condominium
Tax of $1,000 per saleable residential unit per the provi-
sions of section 6651 et seq. of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code.
7. The form, contents, accompanying data, and filing of the
final subdivision map shall conform to the provisions of
Sections 9330 through 9338 (SMMC) and the Subdivision Map
Act. The required Final Map filing fee shall be paid
- 10 -
pr~or to schedul~ng of the Final Map for City Council
approval.
8. The form, contents, accompanying datal and filing of the
final parcel ~ap shall conform to the prov~sions of Sec-
tions 9350 through 9357 (SMMC) and the Subdivision Map
Act.
9. One mylar ar.d one blue-line copy of the ~inal map shall be
provided to and recorded with the Los Angeles County Re-
corder prior tc issuance of any building permit for a con-
dominium project pursuant to Government Code section
66499.30. Appl~cant shall also provide the County with a
copy of this statement of Official Action at the time the
required copies of the map are submitted.
10. A copy of the recorded map shall be provided to the Plan-
ning and Zoning Division before issuance of a Building
permit.
ll. Pursuant to Section 9366 (SMMC), if the subdivider or any
interested person disagrees with any action by the
Planning Commission with respect to the tentative ~ap, an
appeal or complaint may be filed in writing with the City
Clerk. No appeal or complaint may be filed after a ten
day period from the Commission's decision on the tentative
map.
Prepared by: Susan White, Assistant Planner
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Kaufman, Mechur, Nelson, Rosenstein
Pyne
Polhemus
Morales
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under
the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Or-
dinance, the time within which judicial review of this decision
must be sought is governed by Code of civil Procedure Section
1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to
Municipal Code Section l400.
I hereby certify that this statement of Official Action accurate-
ly reflects the final determination of the Planninq Commtssion of
the City of Santa Monica.
- 11 -
U+tJf-
S~g atu~ '
Ra ph Mechur, Chairperson
P ase Print Name and T1tle
J-j 21/9/
da te - I - ,
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.
Applicant's Signature
Print Name and Title
PC/sl144
DKW: SW
- 12 -
L\KRE\CE & HARDI\G
~ ;:'':::(":'3.; : ..:...... :':-Q'::;--;::::",,~ :-
~T~:::.i::lI""E'I'S .a.T _.:t.,N
- -::; ::: -::;:;-.;:: =- "..
25:: :; JC-- s-;;::=!:-
;;;;: .:-....l'i:. ..;;. __. =:0:::....._.:::
S'.J -E: ..l:=C
'" --.;:-;;:;.
- - - -
5~""TA. ...:;.... :::A .::..:._ ":J~~ ~ ~=~=.
"'~_':::::I....C""':: 2..;- -=:;.~ .==,'"
..,:. .
-..=.:=.= V"Lf:: """ ~ 4:5& ;;;"5~
~ ---o-~";:''''' ~"'.::...-;;-'"
May 7, 1991
VIA MESSENGER
Santa Mon~ca Plann~ng Commission
1685 Ma~n Street, Room 212
Santa Mon~ca, CA 90401
Re: VTTM No. 50249; CUP No. 91-012
Address: 1138-1144 Yale street
Applicant: Stark Family Trust
Our File No. 755.1
Dear Commissioners:
This law firm represents the Stark Family Trust with
respect to the above-referenced application for authorization to
construct a nine-unit condominium project at l138-1144 Yale Street.
The Staff Report for this project confirms that, with the exception
of a minor six-inch discrepancy which shall be corrected, the
project satisfies all applicable development standards. The Staff
Report accordingly recommends approval of the project w1th
conditions. We have comments concerning Condition Nos. 15 and 39.
In addition, we believe a condition should be added to address the
proper expiration date of the conditional use permit. Our comments
are set forth below:
CUP Condition No. 15.
The Staff Report recommends the adoption of Condition No.
l5 concerning the potential effect of enactment of the
Transportation Management Plan.
Condition No. 15 is drafted to
read as follows:
L.\\\.I{F\U~ ~ Ii \RDI\(,
.. ;:;.0.':.-::::;;1.=........_ :'=~-~A- =....
.=..---:::.Q~",;::.-s .=.... _~-.JT
Plann~n~ Comm~ssloners
May 7, 1991
Page 2
liThe Clty ~s contemplating the adoptlon of a
Transportat10n Management Plan which 15
~ntended to mitlgate traff~c and air qual~ty
lmpacts resultlng from both new and ex~st~ng
development. The Plan w111 11kely include an
ord~nance establishing mlt~gat~on
requirements, lncluding one-t1me payment of
fees on certain types of new development, and
annual fees to paid by certain types of
employers l.n the city. This ordinance may
requlre that the owner of the proposed project
pay such new development fees, and that
employers within the project pay such new
annual employer fees related to the city's
Transportation Management Plan."
The latest draft of the Transportation Management Plan
ordinance (dated February 27, 1991) fails to include any estimate
of, or ceiling on, the potential adoption of mitigation fees for
new development.
Furthermore, no draft of the Transportation
Management Plan (IfTHP") for the City has ever recommended the
adoption of any transportation mitigation fees for residential
projects.
It is therefore difficult to understand why this
standard TMP fee condition is routinely included as a condition to
approval of residential projects.
Furthermore, it is unfair to
impose such a fee condition without adopting any cap on the level
of fees which might retroactively be imposed against approved
projects.
The absence of such a ceiling makes it difficult to
evaluate whether to proceed with a project, especially where in the
case of residential projects no particular fee amount has ever been
contemplated by city Staff. In addition, the absence of a cap on
these potential fees makes it more difficult to obtain the
requisite financlng for the construction of such a project.
"
f.~\\\l{t\CL ~ lL\RD[\{,
.:. ;:~:-;:~~ -:........_ --:::;:;;::J:;J.lo- :- ~
A--~PN~."S ~... _':'N
Plann~ng Corr~~ss~oners
May 7, 1991
Page 3
For these reasons, we request that Condition No. 15 be
deleted.
CUP Condltion No. 39.
Condition No. 39 is intended to descrlbe the requlrements
necessary to satisfy Program 12 of the City I S Housing Element
(i. e., the "Inclusionary" or "Affordablet' Housing Program). As
drafted by Staff, this requirement reads in pertinent part as
follows:
"An inclusionary requirement of thirty Dercent
of the units shall apply, of which at least
twenty percent shall be affordable to
households not exceeding sixty percent of the
(HUD) LOS Angeles County median income, with
the balance of the inclusionary units
affordable to households with incomes not
exceeding 100% of the (HUD) Los Angeles County
median income, expending not over 30% of
monthly income on housing costs, as specified
by the Housing Division of the Department of
community and Economic Development. . . This
Drovision is intenQed to satisfy the
inclusionarv housina reauirements of the
Housina Element of the General Plan of the
city Qf Santa MQnica. Developer may satisfy
the Obligations created by this agreement by
demonstrating to the Director of Planning
compliance with Ordinance 1519 (CCS) I which
provides implementation standards for this
program." (Emphasis added.)
Program 12 of the Housing Element was last revised on
March 10, 1987, by Resolution No. 7385(CCS). A copy of Program 12
as revised by Resolution No. 7385 is enclosed for your convenience.
At all times since March 10, 1987, Program 12 has required that 15%
of all new units in each market-rate housing project must be
,
L.\h Iif-. \ ( L ~ 1/'\1{ DI \ lJ
..i. ~~--::.-s. -".t~_ ~ =..:::;:::_:::...--=
.:.--::::;~~-== S .:.- __-.'Y
Plannlng CO=~lsslDners
May 7, 1991
Page 4
affordable, and It guarantees each developer the r~ght to elect to
pay a fee In-lleu of dedicating those units on site. Program 12
has never been amended to require that 30% of the new units in a
market-rate housing proJect be affordable. Spec~fically, Program
12 reads in pert~nent part as follows:
"The inclusionary program shall require that
fifteen percent (15%) of all new units in each
market rate housing project be affordable to
persons with incomes up to 100% of the Los
Angeles-Long Beach Primary Metropolitan
Statistical Area median income. The city
shall, by ordinance, provide for satisfaction
of this inclusionary requirement by provision
of on-site housing, off-site housing, or an
in-lieu fee to be paid to the City. The
developer shall have a choice of the method to
satisfy the inclusionary requirement.'1
Program 12 was promptly implemented by Ordinance No.
1448 (CCS) when Program 12 was amended by Resolution No. 7385. When
Ordinance No. l519 (CCS) was adopted almost two years later and
purported to raise the affordable housing requirements up to a
level equal to 30%, that ordinance directly conflicted with the
express language of Program 12 as last revised. Additionally, the
nexus study to support the higher in-lieu fee of $l5 per square
foot was based on a 30% Inclusionary Housing program, rather than
on the 15% Inclusionary Housing Program actually contained in
Program 12.
Because the city's Housing Element has never been revised
to compel an Inclusionary Housing program at the level of 30%,
Ordinance No. 1519 is unenforceable. The adoption of Ordinance No.
1519 failed to satisfy the procedures set forth in state housing
L.\\~ /{E.\( L .\: IL\KUI\h
.. ==:-:5::.-::....10_ :::.:~=-:-;:;".II,.-:::....
A---:.::I..... ~ ~ S A,.- _':'.N
Plann~ng Corr~~ss~oners
May 7, 1991
Page 5
laws (Gov't Code 99 65580, et seq.) and the c~tyls zoning Ordinance
(99 9121.6, et seq.) for proper amendment of the Hous~ng Element.
For these reasons, we recommend that Condit~on No. 39
should be amended to compel compliance with both Program 12 as ~t
is presently const~tuted (i.e., Resolution No. 7385) and also
Ordinance No. l448 Wh1Ch properly implements Program 12 ~n its
present form.
EXDirat~on of Conditional Use Permit.
The Staff Report does not propose a time limit for the
applicant to "exercise" the conditional use permit for this
project.
In the absence of such a condition, Zoning Ordinance
Section 9l14.6 automatically establishes a one year limit on the
time to "exercise" this permit:
"The rights granted by the Conditional Use
Permit shall be effective only when exercised
within the period established as a condition
of granting the permit or, in the absence of
such established time period, one yea.r from
the date the permit becomes effective. This
time limit may be extended by the Zoning
Administrator for good cause for a period not
to exceed 3 months upon written request by the
applicant."
Furthermore, the Zoning Ordinance fails to define what acts are
necessary to "exercisen a permit.
This project requires both a conditional use permit and
a vesting tentative map. Under state and local laws, the vesting
tentative map will expire 24 months after approval, unless a final
map is approved by that t1me or unless an extension i~ granted.
L \\\ Rl:. \( E ~ IL\l{Dj\ (I
~ ::;;:::- --=-~ ::.....ol._ -::::-:==--::ri~. =....
..:..-- -:;-pl'-." ~-,. S .:..- _..";"N
Planning COh~lSSloners
May 7, 1991
Page 6
(See Tentat~ve Tract Map Conditlon NO.3.) It 15 not sens~ble for
the cond1t~onal use perm~t for this pro) ect to have an earl~er
expiration date. This is particularly true, given the protectlons
of the Vesting Tentat1ve Map statutes (Gov't Codes SS 66498.1, et
seq. ) .
The Vesting Tentative Map Statutes guarantee that the
standards which apply to this proj ect cannot be altered later,
except under certain narrow circumstances which do not apply here.
Thus, even if the conditional use permit for this project were to
lapse, the Commission would be obliged to renew that permit so long
as the vesting tentative map for this project does not otherwise
expire.
We therefore recommend that the following additional CUP
Condition be added in connection with approval of this project:
liThe Conditional Use Permit shall expire 24
months after approval, and shall be deemed to
be exercised upon approval of the Final Tract
Map for this subdivision by the Santa Monica
City council."
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that this project
be approved as recommend by the Staff, subject to the following
changes:
1. Delete CUP Condition No. l5;
2. Amend CUP Condition No. 39 to require the developer
to choose whether to dedicate one affordable unit (i.e., l5% of the
L.\\\'RE:.( E ~ fL\RDl\()
.... ~'7-:-(351:'''''''._ ~:.Q':--~&-::..,.
A.~"'-::t:l'N~v5 .0:...... ,,-AN
Plann~ng Comm~ssloners
May 7, 1991
Page 7
n.lne new un.lts) or, alternatively, comply with the In-lieu fee
schedule set forth In Ordinance No. 1448: and
3. Impose a new condition to establ.lsh that the
condi tional use perm.l t for this project shall expire 24 months
after approval unless it is exerc1sed through approval of the final
tract map by the Santa Monica City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
~.:r-:L ~~
Kenneth L. Kutcher
of LAWRENCE & HARDING
a Professional corporation
Enclosure
cc: Melvin stark
Gary Safronoff
Donald Prochnow
Paul Berlant
Joseph Lawrence
D. Kenyon webster
Susan White
Hltre06.251