SR-6-M (60)
LUTM:PB:DKW:GSjCCMEM101.PCWORD.PLAN
Council Mtg: August 13, 1991
"-1'1
AlIa 1 3 1991
Santa Monica, California
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
City Staff
SUBJECT:
certification of Statement
Appeal of Conditional Use
Street.
of Official Action
Permit 90-101, 1247
for
23rd
INTRODUCTION
This report transmits for City Council certification the
statement of Official Action for the appeal of the above listed
Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a four unit
condominium in an R-2 District located at 1247 23rd street.
BACKGROUND
On June 4, 1991, after a public hearing, careful review of the
record and staff recommendations, the City Council approved the
Conditional Use Permit with added conditions including directing
the Planning commission review the subterranean garage.
staff reviewed the Council minutes of June 4, 1991 and the audio
tape to understand the intent of the Council action. Further,
based on Council action on another appeal on July 23, 1991, it
was made clear that the Council intended to require that no
subterranean garage be closer than one half the depth of the
required front yard setback. Condition Number 43 reflects this
intent (page 9).
However, the City Attorney's Office has indicated that the
statement of Official Action must reflect the actions of the
- 1 -
'-M
M16 1 3 \991
Council at the original hearing and not the subsequent
discussions and clarifications of the Council's intent. A
transcript of the June 4, 1991 hearing is attached for review. A
second version of the Statement of Official Action is provided
(page 9a) with a different condition 43 which reads "No more than
50% of the required front yard setback shall be encroached upon
by the subterranean garage.
An area equal to 50% of the
required front yard setback must remain unexcavated. The intent
shall be to provide an area of adequate landscaping." Thus, two
versions of Condition Number 43 are provided herein. The one on
Page 9 reflects what we believe is the Council's intent and
alternate on page 9a reflects the actual language of the motion
passed by the Council.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on advice from the city Attorney's Office, staff is
recommending the Council adopt the statement of Official Action
with condition 43 as amended on page 9a since it appears to
accurately reflect the Council's original action.
Prepared by: Gina szilak, Assistant Planner
Paul Berlant, Director of Land Use and
Transportation Management
Attachment:
A. Statement of Official Action dated 06/04/91.
B. Minutes City Council Meeting dated 06/04/91.
GS
PC/CCMEM101
08/08/91
- 2 -
AL:E~~;TE C:~~I~I~~ ~3
40. Prior to issuance of a certificate of Occupancy, the owner
shall dedicate the rear 2.51 of the property for future
alley widening to the satisfaction of the General Services
Department.
41. The required front yard set back is twenty feet. A chim-
ney and floor area of a bay window encroach into this set-
back by one foot. Plans shall be revised and submitted
to staff prior to Architectural Review Board submittal.
42. The Architectural Review Board shall pay particular atten-
tion to the transition of the projects architectural
style and mass to the one story buildings on either side
of this development project.
43. No more than 50% of the required front yard setback shall
be encroached upon by the subterranean garage. The intent
shall be to provide and area of adequate size landscaping.
44. The project applicant shall submit revised plans reflect-
ing compliance with condition 43 to the Planning Commis-
sion for review and approval.
Prepared by: Gina Szilak, Assistant Planner
RES
PC/stoIIIOl
08/08/91
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
councilmembers Holbrook, Katz, Zane, Abdo
Councilmembers Genser, Olsen
Councilmember Vazquez
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 1400.
r hereby certify that this statement of Official Action accurate-
ly reflects the final determination of the City council of the
City of Santa Monica.
_ 9a_
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
CITY COUNCIL
PROJECT
NUMBER: CUP 90-101, VTPM 22722
LOCATION: 1247 23rd Street
APPLICANT: Joseph Yadegar
CASE PLANNER: Gina Szilak
REQUEST: Construction of a Four-unit Condominium in R-2
Zone
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
6(04/91
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:
6/04/91
CUP 90-101
EXPIRATION DATE(S) OF ANY PERMITS GRANTED:
6(04/93
CUP 90-10l
LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATE(S)
3 months
cuP 90-101 with written request
- 1 -
CONDITIONAL VSE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The proposed use is one condltionally permitted withln the
subject district and complies wlth ~:l of the applicable
provl.sions of the "city of Santa Monl.ca Comprehensive Land
Lse and Zoning ordinancell, in that the proposed condominl-
um conforms to the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan.
2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and
character of the district in which it is to be established
or located, in that it would be located in a multi-family
residential district.
3. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of
land use being proposed, in that the proposed proj ect
meets the density and development standards for the R2
District.
4.
The proposed use
presently on the
are to remain,
demolished.
is compatible with any of the land uses
subject parcel if the present land uses
in that existing structures would be
5. The proposed use would be compatible with existing and
permissible land uses within the district and the general
area in which the proposed use is to be located, in that
the area is a mix of single-family and multi-family
residential buildings.
6. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and
public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed
use would not be detrimental to public health and safety,
in that the proposed development is an in-fill of urban
land adequately served by existing infrastructure.
7. public access to the proposed use will be adequate, in
that the site is adequately served by existing streets and
an alley.
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 all setbacks as condi-
tioned, lot coverage and height requirements for the R:2
District have been met.
9. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives,
and policies of the General Plan, in that the area is de-
fined as a Low Density Residential area by the Land Use
Element to the General Plan.
10. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or qeneral welfare,
in that the proposed project complies with the provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan.
- :2 -
11. The proposed use conforms precisely to the applicable per-
formance standards contained in Subchapter 6, Section 9050
and special cond~tions outlined in Subchapter 7, Section
9055 of the city of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Cse
and Zoning Ord~nance, in that no Performance Standards
Permit would be required.
12. The proposed use will not result in an overconcentration
of such uses in the immediate vicinity, in that the area
is defined as a low-density mUlti-family residential area.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS
Plans
1, This approval is for those plans dated (March 27, 1991) a
copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the
City Planning Division. Project development shall be
consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified
in these conditions of approval. The subterranean parking
plans shall be revised to the satisfaction of the Planning
Commission.
2. The Plans shall comply with all other provisions of Chap-
ter 1, Article IX of the Municipal Code, (Zoning Or-
dinance) and all other pertinent ordinances and General
~lan 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 requirements. 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 existing mature palm tree shall be preserved in their
present location on site, relocated to a specific location
on site or replaced with specimen trees to the satisfac-
tion of the Architectural Review Board.
- 3 -
7. The Arch1tectural Rev1ew Board, in its review, shall en-
sure that at least 50% of the required front yard setback
shall be adequately landscaped.
8. Plans for f1nal des1gn, landscaping, screening, trash en-
closures, and signage shall be sUbject to review and ap-
proval by the Arch1tectural Review Board.
9. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay
part1cular 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.
10. Construction period signage shall be subject to the
approval of the Architectural Review Board.
120 Landscaping 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.
l2. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall
be screened in accordance with SMMC Section 9040.13-
9040.15. Refuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet
on-site need, including recycling. The Architectural Re-
view 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.
Fees
14. 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
establishing mitigation 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 of
the proposed project pay such new development fees, and
that employers within the project pay such new annual em-
ployer fees related to the City'S Transportation Manage-
ment Plan.
15. A Park and Recreation Facilities Tax of $200.00 per
residential unit shall be due and payable at the time of
issuance of a building permit for the construction or
placement of the residential unites) on the subject lot,
- 4 -
per and subject to the provislons of Section 6670 et seq.
of the Santa Monlca Munlcipal Code.
Demolltion
16, until such time as the demolition is undertaken, and un-
less the structure is currently in use, the existing
structure shall be maintained and secured by boarding up
all openings, erecting a security fence, and removing all
debris, bushes and planting that inhibit the easy surveil-
lance of the property to the satisfaction of the Building
and Safety Officer and the Fire Department. Any landscap-
ing material remaining shall be watered and maintained
until demolition occurs.
17. 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 l242
( CCS) .
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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
21. 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.
22. 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 Oepartment of
- 5 -
General ServJ.ces. Approval for this work shall be ob-
tained from the Department of General ServJ.ces prior to
issuance of the buildJ.ng permits.
23. Vehicles hauling dirt or other construction debris from
the site shall cover any open load with a tarpaulin or
other secure coverJ.ng to minimize dust emissions.
24. Street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as
required in a manner consistent with the city's Tree Code
(Ord. 1242 CCS), per the specifications of the Department
of Recreation and Parks and the Department of General Ser-
vices. No street tree shall be removed without the ap-
proval 'of the Department of Recreation and Parks.
25. A construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by
the applicant 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 tiebacks 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 construction noise
mitigation measures; 12) Describe construction-period
security measures including any fencing, lighting, and
security personnel: 13) Prov~de a drainage plan: l4)
Provide a construction-period parking plan which shall
minimize use of public streets for parking; 15) List a
designated on-site construction manager.
26. 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.
- 6 -
27. A copy of these conditions shall be posted in an easily
visible and accessible location at all t~mes during con-
struct~on at the proJect site. The pages shall be lam~-
nated or otherwise protected to ensure durability of the
copy.
Env~ro~mental M~tigation
28. Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures are required on all new
development and remodeling where plumbing is to be added.
(Maximum 1.6 gallon toilets and 1.0 gallon urinals and low
flow shower head.)
29. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, project
owner shall present documentation to the General Services
Department certifying that existing Santa Monica occupan-
cies with toilets installed prior to 1978 have been retro-
fitted with ultra low-flow toilets (1.6 gallons per flush
or less) such that development of the new project will
not result in a net increase in wastewater flows. Flow
from existing occupancies which will be removed as part
of the new development may be deducted from flow at-
tributable to the new development if such occupancies have
been occupied within one year prior to issuance of a
Building Permit for the proposed project. Alternatively,
proj ect owner may provide a payment to the General Ser-
vices Department in an amount specified by General Ser-
vices in lieu of the installation requirement, which funds
shall be used by the City for the exclusive purpose of
achieving compliance with this condition by retrofitting
existing occupancies. Flow calculations for new develop-
ment and existing occupancies shall be consistent with
guidelines developed by the General Services Department.
Projects subject to this condition shall not be eligible
for the t1Baysaver" rebate program.
Miscellaneous CUP Conditions
30. The building address shall be painted on the roof of the
building and shall measure four feet by eight feet (32
square feet).
31. If any archaeological remains are uncovered during
excavation or construction, work in the affected area
shall be suspended and a recognized specialist shall be
contacted to conduct a survey of the affected area at
projectls 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.
32. 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.
- 7 -
33. Any lofts or mezzan~nes shall not exceed 99 square feet
unless appropriate requ~red parking ~s supplied. Such
areas shall also not exceed 33.3% of the room below unless
compliance w~th the d1strict's lim1ts on number of stories
can be ma1ntained.
34. No fence or wall within the required front yard setback,
inclusive of any subterranean garage slab and fenc~ng or
railing on top thereof, shall exceed a height of 42" above
actual grade of the property.
35. 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
securi ty gate shall receive approval of the Police and
Fire Departments prior to issuance of a building permit.
validity of Permits
36. 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.
37, 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
prepared by the Planning Division, agreeing to the Condi-
tions of approval and acknowledging that failure to comply
with such conditions shall constitute grounds for poten-
tial revocation of the permit approval. By signing same,
applicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights appli-
cant may possess regarding said condi tions. The signed
Statement shall be returned to the Planning Division.
Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute
grounds for potential permit revocation.
38. The term of approval of this permit shall expire two years
from the permit's effective date, unless a building permit
has been issued for the proj ect prior to the expiration
date.
39. Within thirty (30) days after final approval of the proj-
ect, a sign shall 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.
Special Conditions
- 8 -
40. Pr~or to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the owner
shall ded~cat.e the rear 2.5 I of the property for ft:.t'.lre
alley w1denlng to the sat~sfact1on of the General Serv~ces
Department.
41. The required front yard set back is twenty feet. A chim-
ney and floor area of a bay window encroach into this set-
back by one foot. Plans shall be revised and submitted
to staff prior to Architectural Review Board submittal.
42. The Architectural Review Board shall pay particular atten-
tion to the transition of the projects architectural
style and mass to the one story buildings on either side
of this development project.
43. No more than 50% of the required front yard setback shall
be encroached upon by the subterranean garage. Thus, the
subterranean garage may encroach no closer than within 10
feet of thA front property line. The intent shall be to
provide an area of adequate size landscaping.
44. The project applicant shall submit revised plans reflect-
ing compliance with condition 43 to the Planning commis-
sion for review and approval.
Prepared by: Gina szilak, Assistant Planner
RES
PC/stoa101
07/30j9l
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Councilmembers Holbrook, Katz, Zane, Abdo
Councilmembers Genser, Olsen
Councilmember Vazquez
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 1400.
I bereby certify that this statement of Official Action accurate-
ly reflects the final determination of tbe City council of the
City of Santa Monica.
- 9 -
.~rnYoJ
sl:gnatfYe
August l6, 1991
date
Beth J. Holmes, Asslstant Clty Clerk
Please Prlnt Name and Tltle
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.
Applicantls signature
Print Name and Title
PCjstoaIlOl
GSjk
- 10 -
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CITY COCNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 4, 1991
An adjourned ~eeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called
to order by Mayor Abdo at 7:40 P.M., on Tuesday, June 4, 1991, in
the council Cha~~ers.
Roll Call: Present: Mayor Judy Abdo
Mayor Pro Tempore Ken Genser
Councilrnember Robert T. Holbrook
Councilmember Herbert Katz
Councilmember Kelly Olsen
councilmember Antonio Vazquez
(arrived at 7:55 P.M.)
Councilmember Dennis Zane
Also Present: city Manager John Jalili
Assistant City Attorney Joseph Lawrence
City Clerk Clarice E. Johnsen
Mayor Pro Tempora Genser led the assemblage in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag of the united states of America.
7-B: APP~~L/CUP __90.:-101/VESTING TPM 22722/CONl?_O~TNJ!Tlof/1247_21RD
STREET: :t-'resentecl Wd~ cile appeal of Planning commission apprc....a..:.
of CUP 90-101 and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 22722 for
construction of a 4-unit condominium at 1247 23rd Street.
Applicant: Joseph Yadegar. Appellant: councilmember Katz.
Council asked questions of st:lff. Counci.lmember Katz spoke in
support of the appeal and in opposition to the project. Council
asked questions of the appellant. Appli~ant, spoke in o~oosition
to the appeal and in support of the project. .Planning
commissioner Donald Nelson spoke in support of the appeal and in
opposition to the project. Councilmember Katz moved to hear late
chits. Second by Mayor Abdo. The motion was unanimously
approved. Architectural Review Board Commissioner Richard Segal
spoke in support of the appeal and in opposition to the p4oject.
Councilmember Katz presented a rebuttal. Discussion was held.
Mayor Pro Tempore Genser moved to den}' the appeal and direct
staff to return with an interim ordinance limiting subterranean
front yard encroachments. Second by Councilmember Olsen.
Discussion was held. Councilmember Katz moved a substitute
motion to uphold the appeal and. deny the project. Second b~'
Councilmember Zane. Discuss~on was held. The substitute motion
was approved by the following vote:
Council vote: Affirmative: Councilmembers Holbrook, Katz, Zane,
Abdo
Negative: Councilmembers Genser, Olsen
Abstain: Councilmember Vazquez
1
,June 4, 1991
A H: Q.{,. '" ""' 4 '" + ~
coun=ilrnember Vazquez asked the reco~j t~ show he abstained from
the vote because he arr1ved late and did not hear ~he discusslon.
Mayor Pro Tempore Genser requested 't.he record reflect that he
voted "no" on this item as 1:e does not believe the developer
should be requested to meet standards which the City does not
have~ and his "no" does not indicate a lack of sympathy with the
ordln~nce and he supports a change in the Code.
Councilrnember Katz moved to direct the city Attorney to prepare
an interim ord1nance commencing this evening that neither partial
nor total subterranean garages encroach more than 50% into the
required setback and that landscaping as required in the Code,
and its intent, be fully adhered to, and that it not be
encumbered by concrete. Second by councilmember Olsen.
Discussion was held. The motion was unanimously approved.
councilmember Zane
Counc~lmember Katz.
unanimously approved.
moved to reconsider action.
Discussion was held. The
Second
motion
by
was
Councilmember Zane moved: to uphold the appeal and approve the
project with an added condition that the Planning Commission
review and approve revised plans which show that no more than 50%
of the front yard setback is encroached by subterranean parking.
Second by Councilmember Katz. The motion was approved by the
following vote:
CounC1J.. vote: Affirruative: Councilmetnbers Holbrook, Katz, Zans,
Abdo
Negative: Councilmetnbers Genser, Olsen
Abstain: Councilmen~er Vazquez
a-A: TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN: Presented was an ordinance
for introduction and first reading adding Chapter 2B to Article
IX of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to require new and existing
no~-residential development project~ to adopt worksite
transportation plans and to pay transportation impact fees to
reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality in the City.
council asked questions of staff. At 8: 40 P.M., Mayor Abdo
declared the public hearinq open. Merber of the public Norma
Gor. ',ales spoke in support of South Coast AQMD retaining
imp: amentation oversight; and sU9gesteC: S.-.nta Monica work with
the~ to establish uniform criteria and procedures for
mUlti-facality employers. Member of the pUblic Joy Fullmer
expressed her concerns. Members of the public Tom Larmore, Saxe
Dobrin and Laurel Roenau spoke in support of the proposed
ordinance with modifications. Councilmember Katz moved to hear a
late chit. The motion was duly' seconded and unanimously
approved. Member of the public One OVer Humanity expressed his
concerns about the. e.nvironment. Mayor Abdo closed the public
hearing at 9: 12 P.M. Council asked questions of staff.
Discussion was held. Councilmember Zane moved to direct staff to
prepare an ordinance for consideration in July and a report
2
June 4, 1991
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
June 4, 1991
KATZ:
I would like to make another motion if I may.
ABoo :
Yes, you may.
KATZ:
First of all I want to thank my fellow
councilmembers that it is nice to know that maybe we
will get some landscaping back. I would like
to...and I am going to need help from our City
Attorney and Mr. Berlant, make a interim ordinance,
if that is proper, commencing tonight that we do not
allow subterranean either partial or totally
submerged subterranean garages to encroach more than
50%: into the required set back. Those that are J
feet above grade the current code holds, which is
either 6 or 8 feet and I don't remember what it is.
And that landscaping as required in our codes and its
intent be fully, fully adhered to that that
landscaping go all the way down and it is not
encumbered by concrete.
ABDO :
Could you add to that motion that a drainage would be
such that any water that falls down on this property
would also have a way to sink into the ground as
opposed to...
- 1 -
ltATZ:
BERLANT:
KATZ:
BERLAN'l':
leAT! :
ASDO:
OLSEN:
ABDO :
GERBER:
That is already in the code that you cannot drain on
other people's property. You cannot drain across
sidewalks. And drainage into the ground is based
upon the percolation capabilities of the site to
begin with but you can state in such a way, and I am
not sure if it is in the code, that sprinklers and
things like that that are added to it to water it be
directed onto the property and not allowed to flow
onto the sidewalks by spray and that kind of thing.
I think we already have it.
Mayor, if I could. Mr. Katz are you saying the
entire setback area has to be unexcavated?
The setback area that is designated for landscaping.
$0 the 50%, for instance, in the front or the sides
that are required have--
That is correct.
Alright. Is there a second?
Second
Alright.
Genser.
There is a second.
Mayor Pro Tempore
I would 1 ike to clarify this is for... to have an
ordinance returned for public hearing?
- 2 -
KATZ:
GENSER:
KATZ:
GENSER:
KATZ:
GENSER:
AnDO :
CLERIC:
GENSER:
CLERR:
HOLBROOIC:
CLERK:
KATZ:
Oh Yeah.
O.K.
It is an interim ordinance but I presume--
We, we're simply requesting the Attorney staff draft
this and return with it at the first--
But the effective date is tonight.
Effective date would be tonight, assuming we adopt
it, which I assume we will. And I would like to
request that you also look at the issue, because I
heard what you said but it is not what I (inaudible)
to say and look at the issue of compatibility with
this provision of the code and to see if we need to
modify that also.
Are there any other comments or questions on this?
would you call the roll.
Mayor Pro Tempore Genser.
Yes.
Councilmemher Holbrook.
Yes.
councilmember Katz.
Yes.
- 3 -
CLERK ;
OLSEN:
CLERlt:
VAZQUEZ:
CLERK:
ZANE :
CLERK:
uoo :
OLSEN:
!tATZ:
ABDO :
BERLANT:
XATZ:
ccuncilmember Olsen.
Yes.
Councilmember Vazquez.
Yes.
councilmember Zane.
Yes.
Mayor Abdo.
Yes. Councilmember Olsen.
Well I would just like to thank councilmember Katz
for bringing this landscaping issue to us.
Well thank you for your support.
I wonder if staff would tell us what options the
applicant has now.
I think in this case the applicant needs to start
over. His project has been denied. And that means
all of the provisions of the current code.
Can I ask you a question. Is there anyway that we
could help this client and let him revise it to qo
back to the Planning Commission so he doesn't have to
start allover?
- 4 -
LAWRENCE:
BERLANT:
ZANE :
EATZ:
ABoo :
KATZ:
ABoo :
GENSER:
LAWRENCE:
He could do that. At this point in time you have to
reconsider your vote and make a condition that
sending back to the Planning Commission.
Wi th a stipulation that at least meeting required
whatever--
I move to reconsider.
I will second Mr. Zane's--
Alright. We have a motion to reconsider.
I'll second.
Councilmember Genser.
I believe, I am not sure about this, that as I am
about this other thing, that in the past City
Attorneys advised us that we could only approve,
conditionally approve or deny. And when we have had
instances like this we have had to actually approve
the project and ask that the Planning commission,
with a condition that the Planning Commission would
review some aspect or aspects of it. But we can't
simply just remand it back to them unapproved.
That's correct. No, you would have to completely
change your decision after you reconsidered, you
would have to approve with the condition that it be
sent directly back to the Planning Commission with a
- 5 -
ZANB:
KATZ:
ZANE :
LAWRENCB:
UNIDENTIFIED:
LAWRENCE:
particular direction for the Planning commission '\:0
follow.
So we would have to then make a motion to uphold the
appeal and deny the project as approved by the
Planning Commission, but have inclusive in that
motion an approval of the proj ect subj ect to the
following condi tion that the area under the front
yard setback not be excavated and that full potential
for mature trees be provided in the front yard
setback?
Well, greater than 50% be there 50% landscaping~ I
don't know whether you will deny the appeal and do it
or uphold the appeal and do it. As long as you get
it back to them.
I mean the appeal is of a specific decision. It
means that we have to overturn that decision before
we can...what? Mr. City Attorney this is your job.
You would have to, at this point in time--
vote to reconsider--
vote to reconsider probably uphold the appeal and
attach a condition that the matter be sent back to
the Planning Commission.
- 6 -
JALILI:
UOO :
CLERK:
GENSER:
CLERK:
HOLBROOK:
CLERK:
KATZ:
CLER.K:
OLSEN:
CLERK:
VAZQUEZ:
CLElUt:
ZANE:
CLElUt :
AnDO :
Or reconsider it and conditionally approve.
doesn't really matter...
It
Alright. We have done the motion to reconsider.
Let's vote on that.
councilmember Genser.
Yes
councilmember Holbrook.
Yes.
Councilmember Katz.
Yes.
councilmember Olsen.
Yes.
councilmember Vazquez.
Yes.
Councilmember Zane.
Yes.
Mayor Abdo.
Yes. Alright, staff is conferring over here. Are
you coming up with the pest way to do this?
- 7 -
LAWRENCE:
ZANE :
KATZ:
GENSER:
KATZ:
ABDO :
EATZ :
ABDO :
CLERK:
GENSER:
I think in this situation the only way it can go back
to the Planning Commission is to uphold the appeal
and set the the conditions that...
I move that we uphold the appeal but approve the
proj ect subj ect to returning to the planning
Commission for correction of the condition with
respect to the subterranean parking beneath the front
yard setback that it does not encroach more than 50%.
That it does not encroach more than 50%.
What are you trying to say is you want to uphold the
appeal yet but approve the proj ect with an added
condition that the Planning Commission review and
approve revised plans which show that no more than...
No more than 50% of the front yard setback is
encroached by subterranean parking. The other 50%
goes... the landscaping area goes down forever.
Is everybody clear about this motion? Do we have a
second?
Yes.
You made the motion.
Mayor Pro Tempore Genser.
No.
- 8 -
CLERK:
HOLBROOK:
CLERK:
KATZ:
CLERK:
OLSEN:
CLERK:
VAZQUEZ:
CLERK:
ZANE :
CLERK:
ABDO :
KATZ:
ABDO :
councilmember Holbrook
Yes.
Councilmember Katz.
Yes.
Councilmember Olsen.
No.
Councilmember Vazquez
since I did not hear this whole thing from the
beginning, I am going to still abstain. I came in
late.
Councilmember Zane.
Yes.
Mayor Abdo.
Yes. Alright. We all understand now that this
project will go back to the Planning Commission with
a revision in how the subterranean garage will be
designed.
May I make an additional comment.
Yes.
- 9 -
KATZ:
It is a l~ttle off the subject but it is landscaping.
I wish anybody in this room that is concerned about
landscaping to go to 20th & Santa Monica Boulevard
and look at the two newest buildings, one on the
northwest corner and the other on the southwest
corner and you will understand what we have been
talking about that people say we must build up to the
property line with no landscaping, because it is
exactly what both those buildings did. They are
abominable in scale, they are terrible in feeling and
it is about time we look at that whole ordinance
again and get some decent landscaping, because this
thing is absolute crime to this city and I know it
has been fought to get rid of landscaping. I don't
know why that occurs but please go look at it and
then I am going to bring it forward again to discuss
this in ordinance.
subpkordjadv
- 10 -