SR-7-A (70)
.
Z-ti
Santa Monica, California
.
LUTM:PB:DKW:DM/CCUP9075.pcword.plan
council Mtg: April 9, 1991
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: city Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of a Planning Commission denial of Conditional
Use Permit 90-075 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50221
to Allow the construction of a six unit Condominium at
1226 11th street.
Applicant: Lance Lentz
Appellant: Lance Lentz
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council approve the appeal
and reverse the Planning Commission I s technical denial of cUP
90-075 and VTTM 50221 to allow a six unit condominium at 1226
11th street. At the Planning Commission meeting of January 23,
1991, the Commission denied the project by a vote of 3-3, with
one Commissioner abstaining.
The applicant has appealed the
Planning Commission action. The appeal form is attached for the
Council's review (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
On January 23, 1991, the project was reviewed by the Planning
Commission. After a lengthy discussion regarding the historic
significance of the existing structure and the neighborhood
compatibility of the proposed project, the Commission voted on a
motion to approve the project with a condition that the height of
the building be reduced from three-stories, 40' to two-stories,
301. The motion failed by a vote of 3 to 3, with one Commission
abstaining, and therefore, the project was denied.
- 1 -
7-'A
APR, G r'.,~
.
.
The commission's concerns regarding the proposed project included
the project design and its compatibility with the surrounding
area and the historic significance of the 11th street
neighborhood. The motion to approve the project with the
condition that the height be reduced to two stories was made in
an effort to make the proposed project more compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood. Two of the Commissioners who voted
against the motion did so because they felt that the commission
should not require an applicant to reduce the size of a building
that complies with the established zoning requirements. The
third commissioner who voted against the motion felt that due to
the potential historic significance of the neighborhood, the
project was net categorically exempt frem the California
Environmental Quality Act as described by staff. Approximately
fifteen members of the public spoke at the Planning commission
hearing. The maj ority of the speakers expressed concern about
the demolition of the existing structure and the compatibility of
the new structure in relation to the potential historic
significance of the 1200 block of Eleventh street.
In the Fall of 1989, the Landmarks Commission reviewed materials
submitted by residents of the 1200 block of Eleventh street
regarding the area's potential as an historic district. The
Commission determined that the information submitted by the
residence was not enough to justify the filing of an application
for a historic district, but the Commission encouraged the group
to come back to them when more inforll\.ation was collected. No
additional information had been submitted to the Landmarks
- 2 -
.
.
Commission, over a year later, when the subject application came
before the Commission. While the subject property is within the
proposed district, the particular structure does not appear to
be of architectural or historic significance. The structure was
not identified in the npreliminary Surveytl conducted in March of
1983. If the project is approved, the demolition permit for the
existing structure would be SUbject to Landmarks Commission
review since the existing structure was constructed prior to
1930.
At the City Council meeting of February 26, 1991, the Council
adopted Ordinance 1572 (CCS) which declared a moratorium on
development on Eleventh street between Wilshire Boulevard and
Arizona Avenue and on l107 through 1115 Arizona Avenue. The
subject property is within this area. However, since the
ordinance only applies to projects deemed complete on or after
February 26, 1991, the project is exempt from the moratorium.
ANALYSIS
project Design
Proposed is the construction of two, three unit condominium
buildings over a 15 space subterranean parking garage. As pro-
posed, the two buildings would be three stories, 40' in height
above an average natural grade. The project would include three
two-bedroom units and three three-bedroom units. The upper level
units would be accessed via exterior corridors with two stairways
and one elevator. No mezzanines or roof decks are proposed.
- 3 -
.
.
Parking
The parking requirements are based on a ratio of 2 spaces for
each two bedroom unit and 2.5 spaces for each three bedroom unit,
plus one guest space for a total of fifteen spaces. Fifteen
spaces are provided in a subterranean parking garage accessed
from loth court alley. Common pedestrian access to the garage
would be provided by one stairway located near the north property
line, and one elevator. The subterranean garage also includes a
storage room with six private storage lockers.
Neighborhood Compatibility
The proposed three story condominium would be located in an area
that currently contains a mix of one to three story residential
buildings. While the proposed building is substantially larger
than the one story building located on the adjacent lot to the
north, the height of the building is consistent with other three
story buildings in the area and complies with the 40 ( height
limit in the R3 District. Several buildings recently completed
or under construction in the area have been built to a height of
40 feet. Staff has included a proposed condition asking the ARB
to ensure that the design of the building is consistent with the
existing bungalow and craftsman style structures in the
neighborhood.
- 4 -
.
.
Conclusion
The proposed condominium complies with all applicable provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. The existing
structure does not appear to be of any historic or architectural
significance and staff has included a condition of approval to
direct the Architectural Review Board to ensure that the design
of the new building is consistent with the existing bungalow and
craftsman style structures in the neighborhood.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The project is subject to a Parks and Recreation Facilities Tax
of $200 per unit and a Condominium Facilities Tax of $1,000 per
saleable unit for a total tax of $7,200. In addition, the
project is required to comply with Program 12 of the Housing
Element of the General Plan as implemented by Ordinance No. 1519
(CCS) , which may be satisfied by providing affordable
inclusionary housing on-site or by payment of an in-lieu fee.
This fee, prior to adjustment in accordance with changes in the
CPI, will be $143,250.00, based on a gross residential project
area of 9,550 square feet.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Council approve the
appeal and reverse the Planning Commission denial of Conditional
Use Permit 90-075 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50221 with the
findings and conditions contained in the Planning commission
staff report dated January 9, 1991 (Attachment B).
- 5 -
.
.
Prepared by: D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
David Martin, Associate Planner
Planning Division
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
Attachments: A. Appeal form dated 02/01191
B. Planning Commission staff report dated 01/23/91
c. Project Plans
OM
PC/CCUP9075
04/02/91
- 6 -
t '
. .
Cl!y of
Santa Monica
Community and EconomiC Development Department
Planning and Zoning DlYlSlon
(213) 458-8341
APPEAL FORM
t- Cc.vYlt.J ~1EG-P~ tD~
FEE: $100.00
Date A1ed ~ ( \ 'q I I
Received by f)/v'\ IW ~,
Receipt No - e..t lP w L, 7~
Name LAKCE LEKTZ c/o Rosario Perry
~re~ 1333 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90401
Contact Person Rosario Perry Phone
(213) 394-9831
Please descnbe !he project and deciSIOn to be appealed
Conditional Use Permit 90-075
V~stin~ tenative tract map 50221
Address 1226 11th Street
Appllcation for a Conditlonal Use Permit and a Vestin& tenative tract map to
allow the constructlon of a SlX (6) unit condomln~um at 1226 11th Street
Case Number Conditlonal Use
~ ~~ 1226 11th Street
Applicant Lance Lentz
Onglnal heanng date December 5 f
Dngrnal actIOn
Please state the S\*tflc reason(s) b the appeal
Permlt 90-075
VTH 50221
1990 contlnued to January 9f 1991 contlnued to January 23, 1991
Signature
1fw- u.. ~_._...::-
~(\-M ~
F~ I j f q9 }
M\H:-+\",\~J\ A:
.
.
- 4
List of Aooeal Deadlines.
variance decisions: 14 days (SMMC Section 9113.8)
Home occupation decisions: 14 days (SMMC section 9110.6)
Temporary Use Permit decisions involving projects having span of
45 days or more: 7 days (SMMC Section 9111.7)
Performance Standards Permit decisions: 14 days (SMMC section
9112.6)
~ -
Reduced Parking Permit decisions: 14 days (SMMC Section 9133.7)
Administrative Approvals (revocation thereof only): 7 days (SMMC
Section 9134.5)
Ocean Park Yard Reduction Permits: 14 days (SMMC Section 9151.7)
Architectural Review Board decisions: 10 days (SMMC Section
9514)
Landmarks Commission decisions: 10 days (SMMC Section 9613)
Conditional Use Permit decisions: 14 days (SMMC Section 9114.8)
Development Review p~rmit decisions: 14 days (Section 9115.7)
Tentative Map decisions: 10 days (SMMC Section 9366)
*Appeal periOdS begin on next business day following the
decision. Appeal periods ending on weekends or holidays are
extended to the next business day. Appeals must be filed on
forms available from Planning and Zoning office and be
accompanied by appropriate filing fee. See Santa Monica
Municipal Code for more information.
k/appeal
DKW:bz
e
LA-.,',r' C~;:ICcS Q.c
.
ROSARIO PERRY
A ~P'..)FESSI{)I\IAl CO~RA l!JI\
OCEAN AVENuE LAW OF~ICES
1333 OCEA"J AVENUt:
SANTA MONICA CALlJ:ORN A 9040'
(213) 394-9831
FAX. (213) 394-4294
APPEAL RE: CUP 90-075/VTM50221
Appl1cant Lance Lentz appeals from the Plannlng
Comm1sS1on act10n and/or 1nact1on on hlS application to
bUlld a 6 unl t, three story condomlnlum on the following
grounds:
1. The ~lanning Commlsslon has not yet act~d on his
applicat10nj therefore, the 50 day deadl1ne ~as, passed, and
the tract map 1S deemed approved as submitted. See Gov. Code
S66452.4.
Appl~cant recelved hlS deemed complete letter on
October 23, 1991. The subdlvlsion deadllne was December 12,
1990, as lt 1S shown on the staff report.
Appl1cant was
scheduled for the December 5, 1990 meeting. At that meet1ng,
due to the number of proJects on the agenda, he consented to
have his matter contlnued to January 9, 1991.
(He ,.,anted it
cont1nued to the December 26, 1990 meet1ng, but Staff stated
that the 26th agenda was full and asked him to consent to
the January 9th).
At the January 9th, 1991 meet1ng, the
matter was once again contlnued, thls tlffie to January 23,
1991, th1S t1me wlthout Appl1cant's consent. The 50 day
deadline clearly ran then on January 9, 1991.
Even if the
Clty argues that applicant wa1ved the 50 day deadline to the
meet1ng of January 23, 1991, since no actlon was taken at
that meet1ng, the 50 days ran the next day (January 24,
1991). The 6 unit tract map lS therefore deemed complete.
CLIE6C/LENNON#11/12/2-1~1 . 1
"cd 'ecYCled oaper
.
.
Appllcantls posltlon that the Plann1ng Comrniss1on
took no action 1S based on the follow1ng. Appl1cant's
proJect was a 3 story, 6 unlt building. A motion was made
at the January 23rd Plann1ng Comm1SS1on meet1ng, to approve
the proJect condlt1onal on a two story he1ght limit. The
Cornmiss1on voted 3 to 3 on that motlon. Plann1ng Staff
stated that a tle vote amounts to a denial of the
applicatlon. That advlse was contrary to City Attorney
op1n1on to the C1ty Council Memorandum #90-16 (attached
hereto for your reference as Exhiblt "1"). In that op1n1on,
the City Attorney stated that "we conclude that on a t1e
vote, no Clty Councll action is taken." Referring and
clt1ng to Roberts Rules of Order, the opinion further stated
"In case of a tle vote for or aga1nst a motion, 'the motlon
1S not adopted and the situation rema1ns unchanged. III
Well, what was the sltuat10n before the Plann1ng
Comm1ss1on's vote? The situation was that there was a
pend1ng appllcat1on. No actlon was taken on it before, and
no act10n was taken on it after the tie vote.
What would have happened if the motlon had been
phrased to deny the three story application? Would a t1e
vote then have resulted In the approval of the pro] ect,
since the motion to deny had failed? Clearly not. But,
that 15 the same reasoning staff used to adV1se the
Commission at the January 23rd hearing.
In add1t1on, the S9361 of the
requ1res the Plann1ng Commission to
Clty'S
either
Zon1ng
Code
Jlapprove",
CLIE6C/LENNON#11/12/2-1-91 2
.
.
"condlt1onally approve", or "deny" the tentatlve tract map
wlthin 50 days. It does not allow the Planning Comrn1SS1on
to take no action and hold that at t1e vote 15 deemed
denled. (The Plannlng ComrnlSSlon apparently has no Rules of
Order for 1tS body to follow to state what a tle vote should
be. )
Its ad hoc decls10n that a tle vote on a motlon to
approve, acts as a denlal is unsupported by any wrltten law,
rule or regulation: and is In dlrect contradlctory to the
above-referenced Clty Attorney oplnlon. The Plann1ng
ComnnSSlon should have made a rnotlon to deny the proJect
WhlCh, to be effectlve, should have recelved 4 votes.
Again, a tle vote would be no action.
The four vote requirement 1S dlctated by ~9363 Santa
Mon1ca Zoning Code ent1tled Denlal. That sectlon requires
the Comrnlss1on to make specific f1nd1ngs, if it 15 to deny a
tentative tract map.
In otherwords the Commlssion cannot deny a tentative
tract map unless it makes one of the specif1c flnd1ngs set
out therein (see also Gov. Code 565589.5). A t18 vote or a
mot1on to approve the proJect with condlt1ons, cannot
poss1bly be lnterpreted to be the cornmlssion's adoptlon of
one of the speciflc findings of 59363 Clty Zanlng code.
Unless the Commisslon adopted one of these specific factors
by a 4 vote margin wlth1n the 50 days, then no denial would
be appropr1ate and the map would be deemed adopted as
submitted. Zoning Code ~9362(b) states that if no actlon 1S
taken by the Plannlng Commlssion Wl th1n the 50 days, then
CLIE6CjLENNON#11j12/2-1-91 3
.
.
"1 t shall be the duty of the C~ty Clerk to certify the
approval" .
THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ASSUMES
THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S VOTE WAS
A DENIAL. THESE ARGUMENTS ARE BEING
MADE TO EXHAUST APPLICANT'S
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, AND ARE NOT
INTENDED TO BE A WAIVER OF THE
APPLICANT'S POSITION THAT THERE HAS
BEEN NO PLANNING CO~~ISSION ACTION.
2. The Plann~ng Commlss~on's denial is in violatlon
of Gov. Code ~65589.5.
Gov. Code 565589.5 states in part:
"When a proposed hous~ng development proJect
compIles wlth the appl~cable general plan,
zoning and development policies ln effect at the
time that the hous1ng development proJect's
application 1S determined to be complete, but
the local agency proposes to dlsapprove the
proJect or to approve lt upon the condltion that
the proJect be developed at a lower denslty, the
local agency shall base its deC1S1on regarding
the proposed housing development proJect upon
wrltten Ilndlngs supported by substantial
eVldence on the record that both of the
following condltions eXlst:
"(a) The houslng development proJect would
have a speclflc, adverse impact upon the public
health or safety unless the proJect is
dlsapproved or approved upon the condltlon that
the proJect be developed at a lower denslty".
II (b) There is no feaslble method to
satisfactorlly mltlgate or avoid the adverse
lmpact identlfled pursuant to subdivisions (a),
other than the dlsapproval of the housing
development proJect or the approval of the
proJect upon the condltlon that lt be developed
at a lower denslty".
The present proJect is consistent with the general
plan and meets zonlng and development pollcles. Therefore,
CLIE6C!LENNON#11!12/2-1-91 4
.
.
Planning Comm~ss1on's d1sapproval would have to be based on
the grounds of (a) and (b).
Clearly, pub11c health and
safety 1S not an issue with th1S proJect, and nothing in the
test1mony at the hearing or the written record even
addressed the issue. Furthermore, Gov. Code S65589.6 places
the burden of proof on the City to show that 1t has compIled
w1th S65589.5 in any subsequent act~on f1led.
Just last year, an almost identical proJect was
approved on this same street (the Chang project at
/J..S-3
11th Street, CUP # S't~o'1fo ).
How these two similar proJects
could be treated so d1fferently by the Plann1ng Comm1SS10n
shows the arbitrat1veness of the1r denlal of th1s proJect.
[No land use/zoning law affect1ng th1s ne1ghborhood has been
changed since the Chang proJect].
If the law is exactly
the same since the Chang proJect was approved, and the Chang
proJect 1S almost 1dentical to this proJect, and this
proJect lS d1rectly across the street from the Chang
proJect, how can this proJect create a "spec1flc, adverse
impact upon the publlC health or safety" of our C1ty?
3. The Planning Comm1ss1on's denlal ~s a v1olatlon
of the City's requ1rement to provide it's fair share of
reg10nal housing needs.
As was stated by Appl1cant' s representat1ve at the
Plannlng Commission hear1ng, SCAG's (Southern Cal1forn1a
Assoclat1on of Governments)
study 1ndicates that Santa
Mon1ca must produce almost 1,000 new units per year 1n the 5
year per10d 1989-1994 to sat1sfy 1tS fair share of hous1ng
units. It has only produced approxlmately 350 un1ts in 1990
and less than that In 1989. The City's continued den1al of
CLIE6C/LENNON#11/12/2-1-91 5
.
.
mult1-fam1ly construction and/or 1ts reduct10n of the number
of un1ts proposed is a violation of Government Code
~65583 (a) (1) and 65584 (a) Wh1Ch requ1res the C1ty to meet
lts fa1r share of housing un1ts.
4. The Plannin~ Commisslon's denial was a v1olat1on
of owners/applicants CiVll rights as well as a v1olat1on of
Gov. Code S66474.2.
All owners have the r1ght to equal treatment under
the law and the right to develop the1r property w1thln the
appllcable land use of zon1ng laws Wh1Ch apply to their
property. In add1t1on, Gov. Code S66474.2 requ1res the city
to apply to reV1ew of the proJect only those laws In effect
when the map applicatlon was filed w1th the C1ty.
The laws are thus frozen 1n place while the proJect
goes through the government process. Th1S proJect compIles
wlth all eX1sting laws affecting it. To deny the proJect as
proposed
1S
a
v1olat1on
of
owners'/appI1cants'
constitutional r1ghts to equal treatment.
The Planning
Comm1ssion's den1al, in effect, amounted to a spot zon1ng of
th1S specific property. It imposed a restricted development
standard on this proJect which does not apply to any of the
adJ01n1ng properties 1n the neighborhood.
The Plann1ng
Comm1ssion even voted (tie) to deny a two story use of th1S
property. Thus, the Comm1SS1on has spot zoned this property
to a one story use. There 1S no other height restr1ct1on 1n
any other part of the C1ty.
Spot zon1ng violates Gov. Code S65851 and S65852
Wh1Ch
reqU1re
uniformity
of
zoning
w1th1n
specific
d1str1cts.
It is also unconstitut1onal (see Reynolds v.
CLIE6C/LENNON#11/12/2-1-91 6
.
.
Barrett (1938) 12 Cal.2d 244).
If this property were zoned
to be consistent wlth the Plannlng Commlss1on's denlal, lt
would be lllegal spot zon1ng. It 1S no less illegal because
the Comm1ssion acts even wlthout the beneflt of an in place
zon1ng law.
5. The den1al of the proJect 1S a v1olation of Gov.
Code S66427 and Program 6 of the City's Housing element, and
as such, amounts to discrlm1natory treatment of appl1cant's
proJect solely because lt 1S a condom1nlum rather an an
apartment.
Program 6 of the eX1sting housing element states that
zoning requ1rements for multi-famlly
owner occupied housing
(i.e. condomin1um, rental hous1ng, and cooperat1ves), could
be 1dentical uunless compelling reasons exist Just1fying
dlfferent standards.")
It 1S clear that thlS proposed proJect could have
been bUll t as an apartment bUlld1ng without any Plannlng
Comm1ssion reVlew.
As an apartment bU1ldlng, it qualified
for adminlstratlve approval.
What Justlfication exists,
then for treating it differently (denying it altogether)
because lt 1S a condomln1um rather than an apartment?
Gov. Code S66427 states:
[N} or shall the government body
have the right to refuse approval of a
parcel, tentative or final map of such a
proJect on account of design or location
of bU1ldings on the property shown on
the map not vlolatlve of local
ordlnance. "
Therefore the Plann1ng Commiss1on's den1al of the
tract map because of the deslgn and height of the bUlldlng
was clearly ln violatlon of thlS Government Code seetl0n.
CLIE6C/LENNON#11/12/2-1-9l 7
.
.
WHILE THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID
NOT ADOPT ANY OF THE FOLLOWING RATIONALE
AS REASONS FOR THE PROJECT DENIAL, THEY
DID ALLUDE TO THEM AS POSSIBLE REASONS
FOR THEIR ACTION/INACTION.
6. Lack of environmental review 1S not a grounds
for den~al.
State
and
City
laws
regard long
enVl.ronmental
analysis contain dlorect exemptl.ons for constructl.on of 6
unl.ts or less in urban areas. CEQA regulation 15303(b)
[class 3] and Santa Monica CEQA guide110nes Artlocle VII,
sectl.on Sc [class 3].
CEQA should not be used as a
scapegoat for bad planning decl.sions.
7A. Potentlal HlstorlC Distrlct conslderatl.on is not
a legitimate grounds for denial.
The 1200 block of 11th Street 1.S not an hlstoric
dlstrloct. The Landmarks Commlsslon reVloewed this street for
potential distrl.ct deslgnatlon at thel.r meetings in October,
1989, November, 1989 and December, 1989. They decided that
the street dl.d not warrant even a study for district
deslgnatl.On. The eXl.sting bungalow on Applicant's property
is not of landmarks status.
A much better bungalow (the
Changs') across the street, was denied Landmark status ln
November/December, 1989 by the Landmarks Comrn1.ssion. There
is no Cl.ty law which allows denial of thlos proJect based on
landmark consl.deration unless the specl.fJ.c to-be-demolished
build1.ng 1.S a landmark, or unless the bUl.ldJ.ng 1.S a
contributlng structure wlothin a desl.gnated dl.strict.
Even l.n these cases, however, the owner has the rl.ght
to apply for demoll.tion on hardship grounds.
Wha t some
members of the Planning Commlossion seemed to do was deny the
CLIE6C/LENNON#ll/12/2-!-91 8
.
.
proJect because of the npotentlal" hlstoric signlflcance of
the bungalow or of the street as a d1strict.
In effect,
these COIT'.m1SS1oners establlshed a II de facto" dlstr:Lct
des1gnatlon and prevented demolltion of the bU1lding. This
de facto designation 15 unauthorized, and thus a violation
of appl1cants clvil rights under color of law. It 15 also
equally damag1ng, because there are no existing statutory
procedures Wh1Ch allow demolltion based on hardsh1p, as
there would be 1f the bUlldlng were properly designated a
landmark, or place \n thln a h1storical distrlct.
Flnally,
appl1cant was den1ed procedural and statutory due process
w1th th1S de facto deslgnatlon, because the C1ty'S Landmarks
ordinance gUldel1nes were not followed.
7B. The sUbJect bungalow on the proJect slte is not
listed on the 1983 ~lndshleld Survey.
Opponents of the proJect ffilsinformed the Commisslon
that the applicant' 5 bungalow had been l15ted on the 1983
"Windshield Survey" of potentlal historlc bUlldlngs. Page 46
from that survey shows that subJect property at 1226 11th
Street 15 not on the survey.
See Exhlbit "B" attached
hereto.
This clearly erroneous statement may have mislead
some Commis51oners who were concerned about thlS bUllding's
potent1al histor1c signif1cance.
8. The proJect's alleged lack of compatlbil1ty w1th
the neighborhood is not proper grounds for denlal.
Whl1e the Staff Report at page 3 talks about
"Neighborhood
Compatibil~ty"
as
a
consl.deration
for
approval, no part of the zoning code allows such a
determlnatl.On to become a factor in denYl.ng a condoml.nium
CLIE6C/LENNON#11/12/2-1-91 9
.
.
proJect.
Therefore, denial on this ground would be a
unlawful. The closest sectlon WhlCh deals wlth nelghborhood
compatlblllty is the Condltlonal Use PerMit sectlon of the
Clty'S ZODlng Code, at Sectlon 9114.1.
Sectlon 9114.4(b)
and
(e)
Flndlngs,
establlshing crlterla for establlsh
conSlderatlon of a CUP:
(b) "The proposed use would not lmpair the
lntegrlty and character of the distrlct in which
it lS to be establlshed or located."
and
(e) "The proposed use would be compatible with
eXlsting and permlssible land uses Wl thln the
dlstrlct and the general area In WhlCh the
proposed us is to be located."
It lS clear from a readlng of ~9114.4(b) and (e) that
these "compatlbillty" conslderatlon do not apply to "helght"
of the proposed buildlng, but rather solely to use denslty
or bulk of the proposed bUllding.
The "use" of the
applicant's
bUllding
lS
"resldentlal."
See
~9000.3
Definltions "USE":
"USE. The purpose or actlvlty for
which land lS zoned or a structure
lS intended or used."
Residential use, of course, is the overwhelmlng use
in the dlstrlct. Also instructlve is ~9114.4Is use of the
word "district."
It does not refer to "neighborhood."
"Dlstrlct" of course means the area wlthin the speclfic
zonlng dlstrlct's boundarles.
"Neighborhood cornpatibllity" for condomlnium review
15 an lmproper con5ideratlon, in that it lS not a factor
WhlCh has been established by law.
It 15 a legally
unsupported term, with no statutory support whatsoever.
CLIE6C/LENNON#11/12/2-1-91 10
.
.
Worse than ~ts lack of legal support however, ~s that
~t has been appl~ed w~thout any written guidelines to deny
proJects from t~me to t~me. It's vagueness clearly leads to
abus~ve and arbltrary applicatlon. Plannlng decis~ons
should be based on laws, not wh~ms.
This case is a perfect example of the abus1.ve and
arbl trary use of "Neighborhood compat~b~l~ ty. II The mot~on
to reduce the proJect from three stor~es to two starles was
prefaced with the statement that the proposed proJect was
out of character w~th the neighborhood.
what ~s the ne~ghborhood? And what wr~tten law or
regulat~on defines what the boundar~es of the neighborhood
are? And, how many three story bUlldings does it take to
make a 3 story compatlble with thlS elusive nelghborhood?
And, what consideration should be g~ven to the fact that 3
lots on the same side of the street (includlng the adJoining
bU1ld1ng) are three story, and one 3 story proJect directly
across the street has Just recently been approved by the
Plann1ng CorrmlSS1on based on a spec1fic finding that the 3
story condominlum was compatlble wlth the neighborhood.
What better example of arbitratlveness could be found than
this: two almost ldentlcal buildings, both three story on
the same block, across the street from each other. . one
1S SpeC1.f1Cally found be be cornpatlble and the other
apparently not.
In additlon,
lncompatlb1l1ty flnd~ng assumes
thlS
CLIE6C/LENNON#11/12/2-1-91 11
alleged
that three
stories
neighborhood
are
.
.
somehow incompatlble to two and one story buildings. This
makes no sense, especially when one conslders that the
zonlng for thlS area was established at 3 storles as late as
3 years ago. The Clty Councll, through its 3 story zoning
deslgnation has determ1ned as a matter of law, that three
storles are permitted and thus compatlble wlthln this zone
dlstrict. Neither the Plannlng CommlSSlon nor the Clty
Council (Wl thout amend1ng that zonlng ordlnance), can now
contradlct that findlng on a proJect by proJect basis.
CONCLUSION
For all the above reasons, Appellant requests that
hls appllcation be deemed approved as submitted. In the
event that the City Clerk does not immediately do so, then
Appellant requrests a hearlng before the Clty Council on hlS
appeal. This request for a hearing, is not intended to be a
wa1ver of his rlght to bring a separate civll action in
Mandamas, seeklng an order directed to the Cl ty Clerk to
certlfy the tenat1ve tract map.
CLIE6C/LENNON#11j12j2-1-91 12
SEN' 8Y:SANTA ~ONICA
.
:10- 2-90 2:01PM.
"'--V A-TO. ...
Va 1M..
LAW OFF:CE:# 2
MBMORANOUH NUKBER 90 -16
SUBJECT:
Au~.~ 29, 1990
Mayor and City council
Robert H. Hyers, City Attorney
Joseph Lawrence, AB.i~tant City Attorney
Err.ct of Tie city counoil vote on Appeal trom
Declsion of Planninq commission
DATE
TOr
PROM;
A queation bas arisen concerning- what the effect is of a
tie city councl~ vote on an appeal tram a decision of the.
Plann1ng Commission. We conolude that on a tie vote no city
Council action 1s taken. The result is that the P"'Iinninq
Commission's decision is voided. In other words, a tie City
Council vote wipes the slate clean so that not even the Planninq
Commission's decision to approve a project is implemented.
AN~YSIS
The Zonin9 COde provides as follows:
An action of the rplanl'1inq] commi.aion
appealed to the Ci~y council .hall not
become effactiva unlAss and uneil
approved by ths City Council. San~a
Monica Municipal Coda saction g132.4(>>).
Two t:hinga a}:)ou,t thi. Sect.ion are notable. The first is
that once an appoal i. taken from a Planninq commi..ion decision,
~ha~ d.aiaion ic .tayed or not operable. ~he second is that it
takgs: somQ affirmative aotion on t.he part af the city Council
upholdinq the d.eQieion of the Planninq commi..ion in anter rQr
the la~b.r'. decision to be i.plementOQ.
A tie city Council ~ote doe. not amount to the approval or
a. Planning Commie. ion decision neCfiI.sary wi thin the mean1nq 0:
Bec::tion 91324(b)~ Rather, the .:trect is just 'the oppos1te.
since on appeAl the city Council is sUbat1tut1nq 1ts jU~9ment tor
that gf the Plannin9 Commission, with the C1ty councIl act1nq as
the fin~l dec1&ign maker, a tie vote by it amounts to
non-approval. or . pre:) act. The Plann1nq commission r s deo1s1on
cannot be reinstate~ ~ecause pursuant to section 91324.4(b) that
deal_ion has no erteet once a timely appeal nas been filed. The
~ec1B1on ot tbe City council standS 1h place of the dec1sion of
~he Planning commission.
- 1 -
~
.
;10- 2-90 2:02PM
CI-Y Ar.v~
LAw OFF:CE:# 3
S~N- BY.SAN-A MON:CA
This underatandinq of the oonsequenoee of a tie vote is in
harmony with the rules whioh govern City council ~eetinq.. Rule
22 ot t.he Rule. for city COl.lneil Heet:inqa provide" that u [ot] ie
vot.ee ahall be lost mot-ions o..nd I:lay be recoMlidereCl." Moreover,
these rules sta.te. that except WhM th.y provide: otherwise, the
prooeduros of the city Counoil shall be governed by Roberta Rules
of Ord6r. Rule lS of ehe Rulee ~or city Council Meetinqa. AS
int.erpreted by the Attorney General, under Rober'ts Rules or
Order, in ca.. ot D. tie vote fel:" :.r ilsa,1mst III notion, "the mot-1on
il!!l not adopted a.nd the situation re.mainB unChanqac.1." 62 ops.
cal. Atty. Gen. a9S, 700 n.~ (~979).
We realize tha~ t.nls opin10n represents a chanqe from
advice that 'the C1ty Attorne.Y'1I office has previously given,
However, that earlier a~v1ce was basea on an understand1nq of how
tne. now supersed.ed "old" zoninq oo<1Q worked and was not based on
the languaqe adopted in the current zoning code.
The C1ty Council may want to amend its rules ot procedure
to state that when 1t acts on an appeal from a City commission, a
tie vote by the c~ty Council reinstates the decision of the
Comm1ssion. This is the effeot, for instance, ot a tie vote cy
the supreme Court. In add. it ion , the Cit.y Council may want to
aMend the zoning code to provide tor the same result.
jlm474jhpc
- 2 -
4- . .
--
Prel~m~nary survey Santa Mon~ca Numbered streets
--
1112 Bungalow Dwe111ng
1348 Craftsman Dwelling
1330 Turn or Century DwellIng
1328 Turn of Century Dwe111.ng
- 1322 Turn of Century DwellIng
-
- Dwel1ln9
- 1437 Bungalow
--
1443 Turn or Century Dwelllng
1900-2500 oks. Street trees CO[TUI\Unlcy deslgn feature
2913 Bungalow Dwelling
----
- 11l:.n Street
...
337 Period ReVIval D\ve11lng
348 Spanish DwellIng
-- 401 Am. Colon~al j)wellln~
438 Spanisn . Dwel1~ng
443 Period Rell~val Dwellln9
-- 447 Span~sh Dwelllng
507 Period ReVIval Dwelllng
520 Bungalow DwellIng
- -,., 524 Bungalow Dwelling
603 Spanish Dwe 111n':I
..ol 623 Period Rev1val Dwel11ng
627 Per~od Rell~val Dwelling
---,.. 728 Bungalow ;:lwelling
848 Span~sh Apartmenc courc
947- 953 StreamlIne Apan:ment
-- 957 Bungalow D\...elling -
1143-1145 Regency Apartment:
1144 Crafcsman Dlvelling
--.
1216 Craftsman Dwelling Or~ental
.... 1223 Bungalow Dwell~ng
1229 (?) Bungalow Dwelling
-
. 1233 Am. Colonlal Dwelling
--- 1239 Am. Colonlal Dwelling
~ 1253 Am. Colon~a1 Dwelling
1255 Am. Colonial Dwelling
-- .1257 Am. ColoDlal Dwelling
1444 Queen Anne D\...elllng
1447 Turn or Ceni:ury Dwelling
1524 Craftsman Dwelling
- 1518 ( ? ) Crar<:sman Dwelling
1810 (? ) Craftsman Dwelllng
1813 Span~sh A;;>artment court
- 1823 Contemporary Condor.l.ln Iums
1848 Craftsman Dwelling
1907 Concrete wall
1923 Crafcsman Dwelllng
-- 1930 Bungalow Jwelllog
2000-2500 oks. Sr.reet <:rees Commun~ty des 19;1 feature
--
- 46 -
--
----.,~:F -
e
.
LAW OFfICES Of'
ROSARIO PERRY
A P!?OFESSlONA:. CORl'O~ATlON
OCEAN AVENUE lAW OFl=lCES
1333 OCEAN AVENUE
SANTA MONICA CALIFORNIA 90401
(21J) 394-9831
FAX (213) 394-4294
February 13, 1991
Ms. Clar~ce Johnsen
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CITY HALL
1685 Maln Street
Santa Monica, Callfornla 90401
RE: Freedom of Inrormatlon Act
Dear Ns. Johnsen:
Please send me any and all wrltten rules of order and
procedure for the conduct of the Planning Commission
meetings.
Sincerely,
RO~RRY
RP/tlf
EXHIBIT t
-
f"TTFi;C'!LENNON#11/14/2-1,k91 3
-
", ... ...........
" -...
.
.
CA:RMM:jld492/hpc
city Council Meeting 10-23-90
Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER 1556(CCS)
(City council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADDING CHAPTER lA TO ARTICLE I
OF THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO THE POSTING OF AGENDA NOTICES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOT.T {.)WS :
SECTION 1. Chapter lA is added to Article I of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code to read as follows:
CHAPTER IA - NOTICE OF MEETINGS
SECTION 1120.
Posting of Aqendas
for Regular Heetinqs.
(a) At least 72 hours before a
regular meeting of the city Councilor
any City board or commission, an agenda
of the meeting shall be conspicuously
posted specifying the time and location
of the meeting and a brief general
description of each item of business to
be transacted or discussed at the
meeting.
....
- 1 -
EXHIBIT 9~\
'0-
e
e
(b) Action may only be taken on
items appearing on the posted agenda
unless one of the following conditions
are met:
(1) By a majority vote the
city
council,
board
or
commission
determines that an emergency situation
exists
that
severely
impairs public
health or safety.
(2) By a two-thirds vote, or
if less than two thirds of the body is
present by a unanimous vote, the city
council, board or commission determines
that the need to take action arose
subsequent to the agenda being posted.
(3) The matter was continued
from an earlier meeting held not more
than five calendar days prior to date
action is taken on the item, and at the
prior meeting the item was continued to
the meeting at which action is being
taken.
SECTION 1121.
Postinq of Agendas
~or Special ~nd Emerqency Heetinqs.
(a) At least 24 hours before a
special meeting of the city Councilor
any city board or comnission, an agenda
,
......
- 2 -
_ _ _<"- ~ )- -J"~ ;..~~~... ...,'
.
.
of
the
special
meeting
shall
be
conspicuously posted specifying the time
and location of the special meeting and a
brief general description of each item of
business to be transacted or discussed at
the special meeting.
(b) Notice of the meeting shall be
provided City Council and board members
or c01l'lmissioners in the manner provided
for in Government Code Section 54956.
(c) Unless an emergency occurs
that severely impairs public health or
safety, no business other than that which
appears on the posted agenda may be
transacted at the special meeting.
(d) Emergency meetings of the City
council, boards and commissions may be
called and conducted in accordance with
the provisions of Government Code Section
54956.5.
SECTION 2.
Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of
thi"s Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no
further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to affect the provisions of this Ordinance.
-
-
SECTION 3. If _any section, ~section, sentence, clause,
or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid
....~
- 3 -
.
.
or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance, The city council hereby
declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and
every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not
declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether
any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared
invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the city Clerk shall
attest to the passage of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall
cause the same to be publiShed once in the official newspaper
within ~5 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become
effective after 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
rw1J~ ~ ~
ROBERT M. MYERS D ..
City At~orney
,
""'
- 4 -
~
. ,.
.
.
Adopted and approved this 30th day of october, 1990.
~;r~
Mayor Pro Tempore
:r hereby certify that the forag-oing ordinarLce No. 1556 was
duly and regularly introduced at a meeting of the city Council on
the 9th day of october 1990; that the said Ordinance was
thereafter duly adopted at a meeting of the city Council on the
30th day of October 1990 by the following Council vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers: Abdo, Genser, Jennings, Katz,
Reed, Mayor Pro Tempore Finkel
. councilmembers:
Noes: none
Abstain: Councilmembers: none
Absent: councilmembers: Mayor Zane
ATTEST:
~-/
v
;;.
.
SA.....'TA MONICA CHARTER
mUnicipal electton, and until hIS successor lS
elected and qualified At the next general mu-
niCipal election following any vacancy, a new
member shall be elected to serve for the re-
mammg period of any unexpired te(m
If a member of the Board of EducatLon
absents himself from all regular meetings of the
Board for a period of sixty days, consecutively,
from and after the last regular Board meeting
attended by such member, unless by permISSion
ofthe Board expressed In Its offiCIal mmutes, or
IS conVlcted of a crime involVing moral turpl
tude, or ceases to be an elector of the School
DlStnct, hIS office shall become vacant and shall
be so declared by the Board of Education
SECTION 904 Presldrng Officer On the
first Tuesday followmg any election at which a
Board member IS elected, the Board shall meet
and elect one of Its members as the presldmg
officer to serve at the pleasure of the Board
.
238
R-92
SECTION 905 General M nlUclpal ElectIOn
Date for Boan! of EducaUon If SectIOn 1400
of the City Charter IS amended to change the
date of the General MUl1lClpal ElectLon from the
second Tuesday In Apnl of odd numbered years
to the first Tuesday followmg the first Monday
In November of evep numbered years, such
change shall be applicable to the eLection of
members ofthe Board of EducatLon under thlS
Charter
In the event such change becomes effective.
for those elected members of the Board of
E:ducatLon whose terms are scheduled to expire
1'1 April 1985, those terms shall expire In No-
vember 1984 for those elected officers whose
terms are scheduled to expire ll1 Apnl 1987,
those terms shall expIre ll1 ~o\'ember 1986 The
terms of the officers elected ll1 November of
even numbered years shall begm on the first
Tuesday follOWing their election
ARTICLE X-APP0I1I.'TIVE BOARDS A1'\i"D COMMISSIONS
SECTION 1000 In General There shall be SECfION 1004 Meetings ChaIrman As
the follOWIng enumerated boards and comlnlS- soon as practicable, followmg the first day of
SlOns which shall have the powers and duties July of every year, each of such boards and
he rein stated In addItion, the CIty Cou ncll may commISsIOns shall 0 rgamze by electmg one of Its
create by ordinance such addItIOnal adVISOry members to serve as preSidIng officer, at the
boards or COltURlSSIOns as m ItS Judgment are pleasure of the board or commISSIOn
reqUIred, and may grant to them such powers Each board Or commISSIOn shall hold a regu-
and duties as are consIStent WIth the prOVISions lar meetmg at least once each month All
of thIS Charter proceedings shall be open to the pubhc unless
the nature of any investigation or proceedmg IS
such that In the opinIon of such board or
commlSSlon the publIc mterest would best be
served by closmg such meetmg to the public and
the reasons therefor are declared as a part of
such action The vote of a maJority of the entire
membership of such board or commISSion shall
be necessary for It to take action
The -CIty Manager shall deSIgnate a city em-
ployee to act as secretary for each of such
boards and commISSIOns, who shall keep a
record of Its proceedmgs and transactlons
Each board or commiSSIOn may prescnbe Its
own rules and regulations, which shall be con-
sIStent WIth thIS Charter and copies of which
shall be kept on file In the office of the City Clerk
where they shall be allatlable for public mspec-
tlon
SECTION 1001 Appropriations The City
Counctl shall mclude In Its annual budget suffi-
cient appropriations of funds for the effiCient
and proper functlonmg of such boards and
commISSIons
SECTION 1002 Appolntment. Tenn The
members of each ofsuch boards or commISSions
shall be appomted by the City Council They
shall be subject to removal by motIOn of the City
Council adopted by at least fIVe affirmative
votes The members thereof shall serve for a
term of four years and until the.. respectIVe
successors are apPOInted and quaWied
The members first appomted to such boards
and commlSSlOns shall so classIfY themselves by
lot that the term of one of each of therr number
shall expire each succeedmgJuly 1st \\'here the
total number of the members of a board or
commISsIOn to be apPOinted exceeds four, the
c1asswcatlon by lot shall pro\olde for the pamng
of terms to such an extent as IS necessary In
order that the terms of at least one and not
more than two shall expire Ul each succeedmg
year
Thereafter, any appomtment to fill an un-
expired term shaU be for such unexpired period
SECfION 1003 Existing Boards The re
spectlve terms of office of a \I members of the
boards and commISSions enumerated III thIS
Article or III eXIStence at the tIme thIS Charter
takes effect shall termmate upon the effectIVe
date of thIS Charter and upon the appomtment
and qualwcatlOn of their successors
SECTION 1005 Compensation. The mem-
bers of all boards and commiSSionS, except
the Plannmg CoI"'mlSSlOn, shall serve Without
compensatIOn for their ServICeS as such, but
shall receIve reimbursement for ne<:essary
traveling and other expenses when on
offiCial duty out of the City on order of the
CIty Councrl
Members of the Planl1lng CommISSion
shall receive reimbursement for necessary
travelmg and other expenses when on
offiCial duty out of the City on order of the
City CounCil In addItion, pursuant to an
ordinance duly adopted by the City Counctl,
members of the Plannmg CommISSion may
be compensat~d $2500 per meeting up to a
EXHIBIT Ib?
Se(: 905
4.dopt-fd
lIIr Spt"clltl
"unldpll:l
EIKrion
6584
R..
M"71CCS
Adop1Cd
6-16-1-4
Me 1005
amen.dotd
.. SpeCial
\tunjdpllll
EJection.
JOin~ 11
1911 by
Rc-solu.lioll:
0;0 7~40
ICCS)
?_--.
_...:,. /J'--~
e
SA.."'"1'A MOKICA CHARTER
e
maximum of $100 00 per month Such
compensatIOn shall be deemed reImburse-
ment for out-of-pocket expenditures and
costs Imposed upon members 10 servmg on
the Plannmg CommiSSion Pursuant to an
ordinance duly adopted by the City Council,
the amount of compensatIOn for Planmng
CommISsIOners may be Increased by an
amount equal to the Increase in the Con-
sumer Prace Index for each calendar year
from the operative date of the last adJust-
ment of the compensation In effect when
the ordmance IS adopted The Consumer
PrICe Index (CPI) shall be the CPI for All
Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles, Long
Beach, Anaheun Metropohtan Area (All
Items), prOVided by the Umted States
Bureau of Labor StatIStics or other com-
parable mdex determined to be appropriate
by the City Councll
e
e
e
-e
-e
.
238-1
R-92
SECfIO"'; 1006 Oaths AffirmatlOns Each
member of aIll'such board or commlSSlOn, a'ld
the secretary thereof, shall have the power to
admInISter oaths and affirmations In any in-
vestigation or proceedll1g pendmg before such
board or comnusSlOn
SECTIOK 1007 Planning CommisslOU
There shall be a City Planmng Commis-
sion appOinted by the City Council, one
member to be elected from ItS own
,
- \
(
c:-
:;
(~J +
e
"
"
t~
":
~
~
~
...
....
-.
(
c
~
..
....-~
~
::t
...
~~
y
F?~
~: l
~<
.Z (;:
~
:....
.~,
;~
i
j:!
~
.
SA~T '\ :'.IO,,:rCr\. ML""r-:rCrp AL CODE
!HcmbC'rshlp to prOVide actl"c liaison
\\ ah the COnUlIlSSlOn, but who shall
neither ha\ c a \ ate nor be eligible to
be Chalrl'l.ln thereof and se\'cn mem-
bers from the qualified electors of the
City, none of whom shall hold al'}" paid
of:lce Or employment In the City gov-
ernment The City EngH'eer and City
AttOrlleV, 01 their assistants. shall be In
attendance at all regular mectmgs of
the CommiSSion
SECTIO~ 1008 Planmnli:; CommISSIOn.
- POI' E'!'S and Dutl<'s_ The Plannmg Com-
miSSion shall haH~ the pm\ er and be
n!qulred to
(8.) After a public hearPlg the reo"!.
recommend to the City Council the adop-
tion a.mendment or repeal of the Master
PI:l.n. Or any part thereof for the phYSI-
cal deVelopment of the City,
(b) ExerCise such control over land
subdivisions as IS granted to It by the
gO\ ernlng body of the City and by the
laws of the State of California,
(c) 1>f a ke recommendations C011cern-
ing proposed publiC wOl:'ks and for the
clearance and rebuilding of blighted or
substandard areas WI tlun the Cl ty. and
, (d) Exercise such functIOns With reo
spect to zomng as may be prescnbed by
Ordin3.nce.
SECTION' 1009 Libral}' Board. There
shall be a Library Board conSlstmg of
five members to be appomted by the
City Council from the qua.l1fied electors
of the City and no member of said Board
Shall hold any paid office or employment
In the City government
SECTIO:-l 1010 Library Board. Pow-
ers and Duties. The Library Board Shall
have charge of the administration of the
Santa MOnica Public Library, and Shall
have power and be required to
(a) Make and enforce such by-laws,
rules and regulations as ma) be neces-
sary for the adnuDlstratlOn, government
and protectton of the Clt)' Library.
.
239
R-57
(b) Approve or dIsapprove the ap-
pomtment of a Llbranan, and
(c) Accept money. personal property
or real estate donated to the Library
Board of tre Santa Mon'ca Pubhc Ll-
brar}' or Its predecessor
SECTION 1011 Personnel Board There shall
be a Personnel Board conslsClng of five
members to be appOInted by the City Council
from the qualliled electors of the CHy To be
eh~lble for appmntment, each appomtee shall
neither hold public office or employment nor be
a candidate for any other public offIce or pOSI-
tion and shall not be an officer of any local.
state or natIOnal partlsan polltlcal club or
orgamzatlon
The member of the Personnel Board shall
serve for a term of ft ve years and until their
respective successors are appOInted and
qualified The terms of such members shall be
staggered so that the term of one thereof shall
expire on each succeedmg July 1st Any vacan-
c):' on the Board shall be hlled by the City Coun.
ct! {or Che unexpired term ..
SECTION 1012 Personnel Board Powers and
Duties The Personnel Board shall have power
and be reqUired to
(al Approve or disapprove the appomtment
by the City Manager of a Personnel Director If
the Board takes no action on such an appoint-
ment Within 30 calendar davs of receIVmg
wntten noUce from the City ~{anager of mten-
tIon to make an appomtment, the appomtment
stands as approved,
(bl After a public heanng thereon, recom-
mend to the Cltv CounCil the adoption, amend-
ment or repeal of Cl~'ll Service rules and
regulations,
(C) Make any mvestlii:alLon which It may con.
SIder deSirable concerning the admmlstratlon of
personnel In the mUniCipal service and report
Its fmdmgs to the City CounCil, City Manager,
and the Personnel Director.
{dl Hear ap'peals of any officer or employee
In the classlhed service who IS suspended,
demoted or removed. and report m wrltmg to
the appointing authOflty, City Manager, and
City CounCil, Its findings. conclUSIOns. and
rec<lrnmendaUons, and
Ie} Act In an adVISOry capacity to the City
CounCil and the Personnel Director on per-
sonnel admlnlstratlon
EXHIBIT
\)-3
I .. ...
Sol: 1011
AMo4td
" Ofi
.. IOSICC$
UoPlocl
C 12-77
s.c 1012
Am..cOll
~ Ot1l
~I 1051tC$
U'plod
.-1211
.
.
"\.rtY
C
Op
SANTA
MONICA
Clance E Johnsen
City Clerk
February 15, 1991
1685 Mam Street
Santa Monica. CA 90401.3295
(213) 458-8211
Law Offices of Rosario Perry
Ocean Avenue Law Offices
1333 Ocean Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Mr. Perry:
In response to your letter dated February 13, 1991, I am
forwarding for your information the following: Municipal Code
pages 238, 238-1, 239 of the city Charter regarding the Planning
Commission and Ordinance No. 1556 (CCS) entitled: "AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
THE POSTING OF AGENDA NOTICES." All meetings are also held in
accordance with "Roberts Rules of Order."
Your request for a certification of Tract No. VTM 50221 for a
condominium project at 1226 11th street has "been referred to the
city Attorney~
sinc~rely,
Clarice E. Johnsen, CMC
City Clerk
&::L'f
Deputy C1ty
CEJ:jj
jjr
EXHIBIT 12:'-\
"
~ -
.
.
lAW O~~ICES 01'
ROSARIO PERRY
A PRO~ESSlONA:. COTIPORATlQN
OCEAN AVENUE LAW OFFICES
1333 OCEAN AVENUE
SANTA MONICA CALlFORMA 90401
(213) 394-9831
FAX. (213) 394-4294
February 13, 1991
Ms. Clar~ce Johnsen
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CITY HALL
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
RE: 1226 11th Street Cundo ?roJect
cuPt 90-075
VTM 50221
Date of Hear1.ng:
Demand That CLty Clerk ~ertLty Appro~al of
Tract Map
Dear Ms. Johnsen:
On October 23, 1991, my cl1.ent _rece~ved a deemed
complete letter from the Planning Department on the
above-referenced proJect. The Plann1.ng Commission did not
hold a hearing on his app:!icat1.on unt1.l January 23, 1991.
ThLs was well beyond the 50 day deadli~e. My client wa1.ved
time to January 9, 1991, but at that hearing, Planning
cont1.nued h1.s proJect without asking for, or receivlng h1.S
consent.
At the January 23, 1991 hearing, which was held after
the 50 day deadline, the conuniss1.on's vote on my client's
appll.cat1.on as a two-story pro] ec;:: t (rather than a
three-story as subm1.lted) 'Was three to three. The C1ty
Attorney's off1.ce has issued a recent opinion memorandum
~90-16 which states as to City Counc~l votes that a t1.e vote
is no act1.0n. Therefore, the P lannLng Comrn1.ss~on took no
action on my cl1.ent's prc)ect wlth lts three to three vote.
In any event, the Planning CommLssion has failed to
act on the project within 50 days from the deemed complete
letter ,_ either beG.ause - the COfiUll.lSsion failed to hear the
matter at the January 9, 1991-meet1.ng deadline or because it
took no action at the January 23, 1991 meeting.
EXHIBIT f-
_T.........CI"/T..,....n.lf'\....'i11 11.1 1?-11,-Q1 1
" ~
..o-....:__.~~"""~_..__~__.~_.
.
___..-___ ~ ~_ _ _ ..._-'J.-./'LF-?.J"-""-....
C~ty Clerk
February 13, 1991
Page 2
Under Mun~cll?al Code S9361, the Plann~ng COrnIUSS1-0n
has 50 days to act on the appl~catlon. Under 59362, It the
Commisslon does not act wlthln that t~me perl-od, then the
tentative map shall be deemed approved...
"and l-t shall be the duty of the
Cl.ty Clerk to certify the approval"
Formal request 1S belng made hereby that you
irnmedl.ately certify the tentatlve tract map approved.
The tract map applicat~on as stated by Plann~ng staff
conforms to the Subdi vislon Map Act i the Ci ty zonlng laws
and all other City ordinances.
Thank you for your help in thlS matter and I will be
looking forward to receiving your certl.flcation.
s~ncerely,
ROS~Y
RP/tlf
~~ ~....rro IT l:""n7.......uJl7 1 /1 d /7_1 "::l-q 1 2
......
'*
.
oj:,'/", OF::iC~S OF
.
ROSARIO PERRY
A "IKlFESS,:)"iAL CC'lPQRA T':)'>I
OCEAN AVENUE LAW OFJ::;CES
1333 OCEAJ'.; AVENUE
SANTA MONiCA CAliFORNIA 0040'
(213) 394-9831
FAX (213) 394-4294
February 20, 1991
SN~TA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
1685 Ma~n Street
Santa Monica, Ca11forn~a 90401
RE: Appeal/1226 11th Street/CUP 90-075/VTM 0221
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENT
on APPEhL TO CITY COUNCIL
1.
'l'HE PLAKNING COMMISSION TOOK "NO ACTION" ON
THE CONDOMINIU~ APP:='ICATIon
Appellant has argued on appeal that he was not aware
of the existence of uny Rules of Order govern1ng Plannlng
Cornm1ss~on meet1ngs, and in part1.cular, no Plann~r.g
Comm1.ss~on rules 1ndicat1.ng the affect of a tie vote on a
mot~on to approve or d~sapprove a vested tract map
appl1.cation.
Appellant's attorney has requested by letter, dated
February 13, 1991, (a copy ot wh~ch is attached hereto as
Exh1.b1.t "e") that the C~ty provldc hlffi w~th "all wr~tten
ru2.es" for the conduct of the Planning ComnUSSlon. In
response to the letter, the C~ty Clerk produced l.n the
QOCUl""en"t:s at.tached hereto as Exh1b~t "D." These documents
are as follows:
(1) Ordinance No. 1556(ccs) dated October 23, 1990
wh1ch deals wlth the post1ng of agendas (not an issue ~~ our
appeal) ;
(2)
"Heetlngs."
51004 of Article X of the City Charter entltled
Of l.nterest lD this sectlon 1S the language
"The vote of a ma]Or1ty of the entlre
rnenbershlp of such board or comnlSSlon
shall be necessary for It to take actlon."
[Emphas1s added].
[TIus lS one of our maJ or pOlnts on appeal i. e.
that no actlon was taken at the Plann1ng Commlss~on meeting
because there was only a tle vote]; and
(3) Santa MOTIlCa Mun~clpal Code ~1008 entltled
"Plannlng Co:mIIl1ssicn" wInch deals w'lth l.ts powers, 111cluding
~1008(b) control over subci~vls1ons. In th~s respect, ~1008
spec~=~ca~ly states that the Plann~ng eoro~~ssion shall have
CLIE6C/LENNON#11/15/2-~~91 1
"6& r.ecvc/ed :Japer
~-
.
.
the power to control subd~v~s~ons as that power lS granted
to ~ t by the Counc~l Qn.d the laws of the State. ~1008 (b)
rec~tes the ObVlOUS, that the Plann~ng Comm~ss~on can act,
and is l~mited in its act~ons, by the authorlty of the City
Counc~l and State laws.
(4) Cover letter dated February 15, 1991, signed by
Joan Jensen. The letter states, In part, that all ffi€etlngs
are held In accorddnce wlth nRoberts Rules of Order."
These documents .subrutted to further substantlate
Appellant's argu~ent that:
(1) There are no wrltten Rules of Order for the
Planning Conwlss1on;
(2) There are no rules WhlCh spec1flcally state what
the effect of a tie vote 1S;
(3) All the mater1al that does eX1st however, wh1ch
deals w1th votlng in general, 1ndicates that a
maJor~ty vote 1S needed to take ~n~ actlon --
approval or denlal.
II. APP~lCANT HAS FOID1ALLY REQUESTED
CERTIFICATION OF TRACT NO. VTM 50221
On February 13, 1991 f Appellant formally requested
certlflcat10n of h':'G tract map by letter addressed to the
Ci ty Clerk. A copy of the letter 1S attached as Exhlb.:. t
liEn. The Clerk acknC\..;ledged receipt of this letter ard
forwarded It to the City Attorneyls offlce. (See Exhl.b1t "DH
Clerk's February 15,1991 letter) There 18 no other
admin1strative act10n to be taken on Appl~cantls part,
except for the prosecutlon of the appeal to the Clty
Counell.
III.
ALL EXHIBITS ARE PART OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
On January 23, 1991, Appellant sub~ltted a draw1ng of
11th Street to the Plannlng Cornrn1ss~on whlch ccntalned
photographs of both 51des of the street and locatlons where
11th Street resldents llved who slgned his petltlor. ln
support of the proJect. This drawing 1S part of the
administrative record and should be preserved and shown to
the Clty Council 1n conJunction wlth the dppeal.
Appellant requests that thls letter a~d lts
attachments also be made part of the adm1nistrat1ve record
on appeal to the City Councll.
RP/tlf
Enclosures
CLIE6C/LEN~ON#11/15/2-20-91 2
e
.
7^
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Community and Economic Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 16, 1991
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: David Martin, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit 90-075
VTTH 50221
1226 11th street
Attached is the staff report and project plans for Conditional
Use Permit 90-075, continued from the January 9, 1991 Planning
Commission meeting. Information received at the January 9th
meeting is also attached for your review.
pc/pcmemo
- 1 -
1\1'~tJ1G,J, ~
e
.
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Land 'D'S. and Transportation Hanaqe.ent Department
MBMORANDUM
DATE: January 23, 1991
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning staff
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit 90-075
vesting Tentative Tract Map 50221
Address: 1226 11th street
Applicant: Lance Lentz
SUMMARY
Action: Application for a Conditional Use Permit and a vesting
Tentative Tract Map to allow the construction ot a six unit
condominium..
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
Permit Streamlining Expiration Date: April 23, 1991
Subdivision Action Deadline: December 12, 1990
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 7,500 square foot parcel located on the
west side of 11th Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona
Avenue with a frontage of 50' on 11th Street. surrounding uses
consist of a three story, multi-family residential building on
the adjacent lot to the south (R3), a one and two story, multi-
family residential building on the adjacent lot to the north
(R3), one and two story residential buildings across 11th Street
to the east (R3), and two story, multi-family residential build-
ing across lOth Court alley to the west (R3).
Zoning District: R3
Land Use District: Medium-Density Housing
Parcel Area: 50' X 150' - 7,500 square teet
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proposed is the demolition of a rent control exempt, single fami-
ly residence, and the construction of a three story, 40' tall, 6-
unit condominium building with a 15 space subterranean parking
- 1 -
.
.
garage accessed from lOth Court alley. The project would consist
of two separate buildings over a common parking garage. The
front building would contain three, three-bedroom flats and the
rear building would contain three, two-bedroom flats.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed project is consistent with the Municipal Code and in
conformity with the General Plan as shown in Attachment A.
CEQA STATUS
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA,
pursuant to Class 3(14) of the City of Santa Monica Guidelines
for Implementation of CEQA.
RENT CONTROL STATUS
The subject property is exempt from rent control as a single fam-
ily residence.
FEES
The project is subject to a Parks and Recreation Facilities Tax
of $200 per unit and a Condominium Facilities Tax of $1,000 per
saleable unit for a total tax of $7,200. In addition, the proj-
ect is required to comply with Program 12 of the Housing Element
of the General Plan as implemented by Ordinance No. 1519 (CCS),
which may be satisfied by providing affordable inclusionary hous-
ing on-site or by payment of an in-lieu fee. This fee, prior to
adjustment in accordance with changes in the CPI, will be
$143,250.00, based on a gross residential project area of 9,550
square feet.
The project is exempt from the Housing and Parks project Mitiga-
tion fee established by Ordinance No. 1367 (CCS), based on the
fact that the project will not result in the addition ot 15,000
net rentable square feet or more of office area.
ANALYSIS
The proposed project would include the construction ot two, three
unit condominium buildings over a 15 space subterranean parking
garage. The two buildings would be three stories, 40' in height
above an average natural grade of 131.0 The project would in-
clude two three-bedroom flats and three three-bedroom units. The
upper level units would be accessed via exterior corridors with
two stairways and one elevator. No mezzanines or root decks are
proposed.
parking-
The parking requirements are based on a ratio ot 2 space. for
each two bedroom unit and 2.5 spaces tor each three bedroom unit,
plus one guest space. A total of 15 spaces are provided in a
- 2 -
.
.
subterranean parking garage accessed from lOth Court alley. Com-
mon pedestrian access to the garage would be provided by one
stairway located near the north property line, and one elevator.
The subterranean garage also includes a storage room with six
private storage lockers.
Neighborhood Compatibility
.
The proposed three story condominium would be located in an area
that currently contains a mix of one to three story residential
buildings. While the proposed building is sUbstantially larger
than the one story building located on the adjacent lot to the
north, the height of the building is consistent with other three
story buildings in the area and complies t,tith the 4.0 I height
limit in the R3 District. Several building recently completed or
under construction in the area have been built to a height ot 40
feet. Staff has included a condition to ARB to ensure that the
design of the building is consistent with the existing bungalow
and craftsman style structures in the neighborhood.
Conclusion
The proposed condominium complies with all applicable provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan and therefore merit.
approval.
RECOMMENDATION
rt is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Condition-
al Use Permit 90-075 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50221 sub-
ject to the followinq findings and conditions:
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision, together with its provision for
its design and improvements, is consistent with applicable
general and specific plans as adopted by the City of Santa
Monica, in that the project conforms to the provisions of
the R3 District standards of the Zoning Ordinance and the
Medium-Density Residential section of the Land Use Element
of the General Plan.
2. The .ita 1s physically suitable for the proposed type of
development, in that it is a standard lot with no unusual
characteristics.
3. The site is physicallY suitable for the proposed density
of development, in that a 7,500 square foot parcel in the
R3 District can accommodate 6 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 proposed development is an in-fill of
urban land which does not currently support fish or sig-
nificant wildlife.
- 3 -
.
.
5. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement
will not cause serious public health problems, in that the
proposed development complies with the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan.
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 subject site is ade-
quately served by existing streets.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. 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", in that the proposed condomini-
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 project
meets the density standards for the R3 District.
4. The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses
presently on the subject parcel if the present land uses
are to remain, in that the existing structure would be
demolished.
5. The proposed use would be compatible with existing and
permissible land uses within the district and the qeneral
area in which the proposed use is to be located, in that
the area is a mix of single-family and mUlti-family
residential buildinqs.
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 existinq streets.
8. The physical location or placement of the use on the site
is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the sur-
roundinq neighborhood, in that all setbacks, lot coverage
and height requirements for the R3 District have been met.
- 4 -
.
.
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 Medium-Density Residential area by the Land Use
Element of the General Plan.
10. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare,
in that the proposed project complies the the provisions
of the Zoning ordinance and the General Plan.
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 no Performance standard per-
mit 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 multi-family residential district.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS
Plans
1. This approval is for those plans dated 10/05/90, a copy of
which shall be maintained in the files of the City Plan-
ning Oivision. project development shall be consistent
with suoh plans, except as otherwise specified in these
conditions of approval.
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
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.
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 planninq.
Architectural Review Board
4.
.
5. Prior to consideration of the project by the Architectural
Review Board, the applicant shall review disabled access
requirements wi th 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
- 5 -
.
.
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, located in the northeast
corner of the parcel shall be either preserved in its
present location relocated on the property.
7. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash en-
closures, and siqnage shall be subject to review and ap-
proval by the Architectural Review Board.
s. 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. The ARB shall also
ensure that the design of the building is compatible with
the existing bungalow and craftsman style structures in
the neighborhood.
9. Construction periOd signage shall be subject to the
approval of the Architectural Review Board.
10. Landscaping plans shall comply wi th Subchapter 5B
(Landscaping Standards) of the zoning ordinance including
use of water-conserving landscaping materials, landscape
maintenance and other standards contained in the
Subchapter.
1~. 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, including recycling. The Architectural Review Board
in its review shall pay partiCUlar attention to the
screening of such areas and equipment.
12.
No gas or electric meters shall be located within
quired front or street side yard setback areas.
chitectural Review Board in its review shall pay
lar attention to the location and screening
meters.
the re-
The Ar-
particu-
of such
Fees
13. 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
establishinq mitigation requirements, includinq 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 proj ect pay such new development fees, and
- 6 -
.
.
that employers within the project pay such new annual em-
ployer fees related to the City's Transportation Manage-
ment Plan.
14. A Park and Recreation Facilities Tax of $200.00 per
residential unit shall be due and payable at the ti~e of
issuance of a building permit for the construction or
placement of the residential unites) on the subject lot,
per and subject to the provisions of Section 6670 et seq.
of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
Demolition
15. Until such time as the demolition is undertaken, and un-
less the structure is currently in use, the eXisting
structure shall ~e maintained and secured by ~oarding 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.
16. Unless otherwise approved by the Recreation and Park. 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) .
17. 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.
18. 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.
Construction
19. Unless otherwise approved by the Department of General
Services, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable
during the grading and construction phase ot the project.
20. sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need
replaeing or removal as a result of the project a8 deter-
mined by the Department ot 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.
- 7 -
.
.
21. 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.
22. street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as
required in a manner consistent with the City's Tree Code
COrd. 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.
23. 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. As ap-
plicable, this plan shall 1) Specify the names, addresses,
telephone n'_1mhers and business license nmnhers of all con-
tractors and subcontractors as well as the developer and
architect; 2) Describe how demolition of any existing
structures is to be accomplished; 3) Indicate where any
cranes are to be located for erection/construction; 4)
Describe how much of the public street, alleyway, or side-
walk is proposed to be used in conjunction with construc-
tion; 5) Set forth the extent and nature of any p11e-
driving operations; 6) Describe the length and nnmlo\er of
any tiebacks which must extend under the property of other
persons; 7) Specify the nature and extent of any dewater-
ing and its effect on any adjacent buildings; 8) oe.crib.
anticipated contruction-re1ated truck routes, numher ot
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 normal-
ly permitted hours is proposed; 11) Describe any proposed
construction noise mitigation measures; 12) Describe con-
struction-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.
24. 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.
25. 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
- 8 -
.
.
26. Ultra-low flow plnmhing fixtures are required on all new
development and remodeling where plmnhing is to be added.
(Maximum 1.6 gallon toilets and 1.0 gallon urinals and low
flow shower head.)
27. 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 wi thin 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
guidel ines developed by the General Services Department.
Projects subject to this condition shall not be eligible
for the "Baysaver" rebate program.
Miscellaneous CUP Conditions
28. The building address shall be painted on the root of the
building and shall measure four feet by eight teet (32
square feet).
29 . I f 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
project's owner's expense. A determination shall then be
made by the Director of Planning to determine the si9'-
nificance of the survey findinqs and appropriate actions
and requirements, if any, to address such findinqs.
30. street and/or alley lighting shall be provided on public
riqhta of way adjacent to the project if and as needed per
the specifications and with the approval of the Department
ot General Services.
31. Any lofts or mezzanines shall not exceed 99 square feet
unless appropriate required parkinq is supplied. Such
areas shall also not exceed 33.3% of the room below unless
compliance with the district's limits on ~J~~.r ot stories
can be maintained.
32. No fence or wall within the required front yard setback,
inclusive of any subterranean garage slab and fencing or
- 9 -
.
.
railing on top thereof, shall exceed a height of 42" above
actual grade of the property.
Validity of Permits
33. The Conditional Use Permit shall be of no further force or
effect if the Tentative Map expires prior to approval of a
Final Map for said tract.
34. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with
any conditions of approval of this permit, no further per-
mi ts, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy
shall be issued until such violation has been fully
remedied.
35. Within ten days of Planning Di v ision 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 conditions. The signed
statement shall be returned to the Planning Division.
Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute
grounds for potential permit revocation.
36. 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 expire two years from the permitla effective date,
unless a building permit has been issued for the project
prior to the expiration date. No time extension shall be
granted beyond this two year period.
Inclusionary Unit Condition
37. The developer shall covenant and agree with the city of
Santa Monica to the specific term., conditions and
restrictions upon the possession, use and enjoyment of the
subject property, which terms, conditions and restrictions
shall be recorded with the Los Angel.. County Recorder's
atfice as a part of the deed of the property to ensure
that two affordable units are provided and maintained
over time and through suDsequent sales ot the property.
An incluslonary requirement ot thirty percent of the units
shall apply, of which at least twenty percent shall be
affordable to households not exceeding sixty percent 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 (HUD) LoB Angel.s
County median income, expending not over 30' of monthly
- 10 -
.
.
income on housing costs, as specified by the Housinq Divi-
s ion of the Department of Communi ty 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.
This provision is intended to satisfy the inclusionary
housing requirements of the Housing Element of the General
Plan of the City of Santa Monica. Developer may satiSfy
the obligations created by this Agreement by demonstrating
to the Director of Planning compliance with Ordinance 1519
eCCS), which provides implementation standards for this
program.
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. Durinq 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 submlttinq required materials to the santa Monica En-
gineerinq Division for a final map, applicant shall pro-
vide a copy of the approved statement ot Official Action.
5. prior to approval of the final map, Condominium Associa-
tion By-LaWS (if applicable) and a Declaration of CC , R'B
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The
ce & R' s shall contain a non-discrimination claus. as
- 11 -
.
.
presented in section 9392 (SMMC) and in the case of con-
dominiums, contain such provisions as are required by Sec-
tion 9122E (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 tiling 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
prior to scheduling of the Final Map for City council
approval.
8. The form, contents, accompanying data, and filing of the
final parcel map shall conform to the provisions of Sec-
tions 9350 through 9357 (SMMC) and the Subdivision Map
Act.
9. One mylar and one blue-line copy of the final map shall be
provided to and recorded with the Los Angeles county Re-
corder prior to issuance of any building permit for a con-
dominium project pursuant to Government Code Section
66499.30. Applicant shall also provide the County with a
copy of this statement of Official Action at the ti.e the
required copies of the map are submitted.
10. A copy of the recorded map shall be provided to the Plan-
ning and Zoning 01 vision before issuance of a Building
permit.
11. 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 map, an
appeal or complaint may be filed in writing with the City
Clerk. No appeal or complaint may be filed atter a tan
day periOd from the Commission's decision on the tentative
map.
Prepared DY: David Martin, Associate Planner
Attachments:
A. Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
B. Radius and Location Map
C. Photoqraphs ot site and Surroundinq Properties
D. statistical Information Sheet
E. Summary of CC & R's
F. Tentative Tract Map 50221
o. Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations
- 12 -
e
.
OM
CUP90075
01/16/91
.
- 13 -
.
.
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Land O'se
Category Blement Municipal Code Project
Permitted Use Same Medium-Density Medium Density
as MUlti-family Residential
Code Residential Condominium
Moratorium Status N/A N/A
Dwelling Units Same 6. 4 Units 6 Units
as
Code
Height of Building 40' 40' 40'
Number of stories 3 3 stories 3 Stories
Height of Walls,
Fences N/A Not to exceed 42" None Shown
in front yard, 6'
in rear yard, or
8' with adjacent
property owner's
approval.
Setbacks
Front yard N/A 20'
sideyard N/A 8 '
Rearyard N/A 15'
Projections Into
Yards KIA Per Section
9040.18
20'
8 I
15'
Bay Window - 18"
into side yard.
Chimney and
balcony - l' into
rear yard.
Lot Coverage
parking
Access
NIA
50%
48.5%
Alley
access is
encouraged
when alley
exists.
Alley access is
required when
alley exists, with
exceptions per
Sections 9044.8-9.
Alley access
provided
Parking Space Number N/A
15
15
- 14 -
. .
Trash Area N/A Trash To be located
enclosure in subterranean
required parking garage.
Front yard
Landscaping N/A sot 78t
Sideyard
Landscaping MIA sot of un- 75t of un-
excavated excavated
sideyard sideyard
Unexcavated
Sideyard N/A 4' unexcavated 4' unexcavated
sideyard on one sideyard provided
side of 50' wide on north side.
lot.
Inclusionary
Units/Fee 1 unit or payment Condition of
in-lieu fee. approval requires
Program 12
Compliance.
Project Mitigation
Measure Fee N/A NIA
- 15 -
.
.
1226 11TH STREET - 6 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROPOSAL
STATISTICAL INFORMATION SHEET :
A - NUMBER OF UNITS : 6 (3 3-BDRM
GROSS FLOOR AREA UNIT 1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
3.1
3.2
TOTAL :
B - NETT LOT AREA
C - COVERED BY BUILDING
o - COVERED BY LANDSCAPE
E - ESTIMATED PRICE OF UNIT 1.1:
1. 2:
2 .1:
2.2:
3. 1 :
3.2:
+ 3 2-BDllM)
1,700 S.F.
1,450 S.F.
1,700 S.F.
1,500 S.F.
1.700 S.F.
1,500 S.F.
9,550 S.F.
7,498 S.F.
48.5 %
:t 24 %
$ 475,000.-
$ 380,000.-
$ 450.000.-
$ 395,000.-
$ 475,000.-
$ 400,000.-
-
~~&JT" D
.
..
~~ .....
.
R.E 5 Ul':.E
CONDOMINIUM ARTICLES OF INCORPORATIOK,
BYLAW~ A~: cc.aS
RE: Tract No.
Name of Subd~v~s~on~ FOUNTAIN CONDOMINIUM
Address of ProJect: 122' 11th Street, Santa
Kor.ica. California 90403
t:n1.ts: S1.X (6)
1. Type of Orianization: This is a Nonprofit
Mutual Benefit Corpori't1.on organized under the California.
No~p=cflt Mu~ual Benef1.t Corpcration La_.
2. MemberSh1.r: Any and all
(1.nclud~ng Dec:arr.rt who have record
Condom1.n1.um or a part of one.
persons (Owners)
ownership of a.
3. Membership Termination: Only upon sale by owner
of Ownerls interest in a Condom1nium is OWner no lonqer a
member of the Association.
4. Voting Rights: Initially, the Association shall
have two classes of votinq memberShip:
Class A. Class A members shall be all Unit
owners with the 6xception of Declarant. Cl... A members
shall be entitled to one vote for each condominium owned by
them. When more than one person holds such in~erest in any
condominium., all sueh persons shall be members. The vot.e
for such Unit .hall be exercised as they, amonq them.elv..,
determine, but in no event ahall more than one vote be cast
wi th re.pect to any such condOllliniUll'l.
Cla.. B. The Class B member shall be Declarant.
The Class B member shall be entitled to thr.. (3) vot.. for
each condominium owned by it, provided that the Class S
membership shall cease and be converted to Cla.s A
membership on the happeninq of the followinq eventa,
wh1chever occurs earlier:
A. When the total votes outatandinq in 1:he
Class A membership ~qual the tot.al votes outstanding in ehe
Class B m~mber8hip; or
B. Two (2) years from the date of the oriqinal
iesuance of the Final Subdivision Public Report i.sued by
CCRS/LENNON-CCR'1/4/10-2-90 1
~.&J,.&J~ t-r '-
,
.
RESU~E
CONDOMINIUM ARTICLES OF INCORPORATIOK,
BYLA~S A~= CC~Rs
RE: Tract No.
Name of Subd~vis~on: FOL~TAIN CONDOMINIUM
Address of ProJect: 122' 11th Street, Santa
Mor.lea, Cal~fernia 90403
Unl.ts: 5l.X (6)
1. Type of Or~a4izat~on: This 1S a Nonprofit
Mutual Benefit Corpor~t1.on organized under the Cal1.fornia ~ or
Nonprof~t Mutual Beneflt Corpcration La~.
2. Mernbersh1p: Any and all
{l.ncluding Dec:~r~rtf who have record
Condoml.nium or a part of one.
3. .Membership Termination: Only upon sale by Owner
of Ownerls interest in a Condominium is Owner no longer a
member of the Association.
persons (Owners)
ownership of a
4. Votinq Rights: Initially, the Assoc~~tion shall
have two classes of voting membership:
Class A. Class A members shall be all Unit
owners with the &xception of Declarant. Class A members
shall be entitled to one vote for each condorr.inium owned by
them. When more than one person holds such interest in any
condominium, all .ueh personS' shall be members. The vote
for such Unl~ shall be exercised as they, amonq themselves,
deter.mine, but in no event shall more than cr.e vote be cast
with r..pect to any such condominium.
~~~~c~a.8 B. The Class B member shall be Declarant.
The Clas. B member shall be entitled to three (3) votes for
each condominium owned by it, provided that the Class B
membership shall cease and be converted to Class A
m~Mbership on the happening of the following events,
whichever occurs earlier:
A. When the total votes outstandinq in dl.
Class A membership .qual the total votes outstandinq in the
Class B membership: or
""
B. Two (2) years from the date of the oriqinal
lEsuance of the Final Subdivision Public Report i..ued by
CCR5/LE~ON-CCRtl/4/10-2-90
1
,
,
~'.
.
,
"1
.
~
I
I
I
Q JI
01
01 .
~ .
.. .
II"t ....
.
~
i 8 i!~ Iii II
g ~ i
.
I ~
....
~ .
~
a1 Cii
f4
tJ
IlQ C
a:
f4 f4
:3 c
! u ....
""" I
I z
i
c I a..
fit I;
I z
c ! i ..:
CIJ ~
~
g
. I
-
... tB;
~ MI
~ ~
- ~
.. Z (U
--
~ Z ~
~Z ]
cg
~ ~
-~
m. ~.~ .J- t
.:J _
. -
"
.
.
the Department of Real Estate for the ProJect.
S. Manaqement: Management shall be appointee by the
elected Board of Directors to operate, maintain and manaqe
the Pro:pct.
6. Project_Life: F~fty (50) years.
7. Effectivitv Tern of ar.c1 Amendments to ~C'Rs:
Term~nat1.0n fifty (50) years with automatic ten (10) year
?er~od renewals unless maJor1ty of owners vote to partition
p~lC~ ~o one year before each termination per1od. Oeclarant
co.r., prior to sale of first c:ondomir.i\:1r., but only wlth
approval of Santa Monica Planning Commission, amend CC&Rs as
lona as it c.ces not C'onflJ.ct WJ.th terms ..tabl1.shed for
mortgagee protection. After sale of firat condominium,
m1n1.mum of 75\ of Loth o\mers and Declarant votinq class if
two class votJ.nq in effect. If ON~ class votinq. then
minl.mum of 751 of votes and at least 51' of owner. (not
lncludl~g Declarant).
8. ~aJ.nt.nance Prcvisicr.E:
(a) Each OWner shall maintain in a clean .nd
saT .ltary condition and in good repa1r the l.nter..t of his
Un1.t.
(b) Common Areas: It is the responsibility of the
Homeowners Association to maintain the C01IIIIlon Are.. in a
clean ane sanitary condition and in good repair.
9 . Damage - Repair or Abandonment Provision~: Upon
part1.al or - total dea'Gruct1on, i.f the a'~a11"bl. insurance
proceed cover not 1... than 85' of cost of repair, the
pro~ect shall be rebuilt, unl... at least 75' of owner.
w~th1n 90 day. vote not to rebuil~. If the available
insurance proce.d. cover 1... than 85\ of the repair coata,
the project shall be rebuilt unl.ss 66' of owner., within 90
days, vote not to rebuild.
As .OOD .. possible, the Board of Director. of the
Association ahall obtain bid. froa at leaat two (2)
reputable cOlltrae~r., licens.d in Californi., which bid.
shall set forth in detail the work required to repair,
reeon.truc~ and r..~r. the damaq.. or d..troyed portion. of
the Common Are. and determine the aaount of all inaurance
proceeds available to the As.oeiation.
10. D.scription, OWnership of Condcainiua Onit~:
The Declaration ..tablLahe4 . p~an tor the 1n41vldual
ownershi.p for the air apace contained within 1:Ml Siz el)
individual unit. ccapri.in9 the building_
Six (6) unit condominium, single structure. Owner.
own each unit and One Six~h Cl/6th) inter.at in the
CCRS/LENNON-CCR'1/4/10-2-90 2
\..
.
-~
A~~cc~a~1C~. Ttere are 3 Ur.l~S, wlth 3 bedrooms, 2;
~a~~=ooMS, wlth k~tche~, llv1rg roar, and dl~lng room. They
r2."e ?ppro>:urately 1 '00 square :eet. 'There are 2 unl.ts with
2 bec.rooms, 2; baths Wl th 1<1 tchen, 11 Vl.!'~g room and dinJ.nq
roo!". They have apprcx.:.rcte :::. ~ 500 sq\;dre feet. There is
one ~n1t wltr 2 bedrooms and 2, bathrooms, kltchen, livJ.nq
=com, a~d dl~lng rOOIT and It has 1450 square feet.
,. Descrl~tlOr., Ownership arc Cse of Common Areas:
~~8 D~c.aratlcn prCVloes that the Owners of the individual
L,: ts shal':" have an undlvlded fractlonal l:-lterest In the
CCT"'1"'O:" Area and each O......r.er shall. have an e>..cll.:'slve use of
certaln comr..o~ areas and for the benefit of thelr Unlt for
l:-g=ess, egress and sur-rcr'" (wer, acrosS' and through the
CCITJron Areu.
12. Parkln9 S~ace Ass:.~r.l"'eJ"'t: The:"!: are 15
s~accs :n a subterranean garaqe. Eac~ ~nlt shall be qranted
by Declar.s.r.t for each L:llt, wf.lch parking space assiqned
par~lr~ eE r~qulred by coee. Sald spaces shall be an element
of the Dr-it and rnalr.~a~n~d by the Purchaser, and shall be
appurter.ar.~ tc ~r.d for the exclusive use for such Unit.
13. Restr1c~~or.S:
a. Owner's FinanclaliLegal Status: No restrlctions.
b. t;::;4~: Solely res1dentlal use permi tted.
C. Any RestrlctJ.ons on Age of Occup~nt5: No
re:;trlctions.
d. Pe:s: Two dornestlc pets per un1t allowed.
Prepared by:
LAW OFFICES OF ROSARIC PERPY
1333 Ocean Avenue
Santa Monica, California 90401
Telephone: (213) 394-9831
CCR5/LENNON-CCRtl/4/10-2-90 3