SR-012688-12A
,-i. \
f'tJ 2~ tCJ I} ?
\2-A
JAN 2 6 1988
-..
C/ED:SF:LM:nh
council Mtg: January 26, 1988
Santa Monicar California
TO: Mayor and city council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning commission Approval of Tentative
Tract Map (TTM) 45570, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 469
and ZA 5258-Y; 10 Unit Condominium at 2203 Ocean
Avenue. Applicant: Joe steinberg. Appellant: Charles
Wachtel.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council deny the subject
appeal and approve TTM 45570, CUP 469 and ZA 5258-Yr for a ten
unit condominium, as recommended in the Planning Commission staff
report and approved by the Planning Commission, by a vote of 5-2,
on November 2r 1987.
The appellant cites the granting of unnecessary variances and the
projects overall impact on adjacent residences as grounds for the
subject appeal (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
On September 21, 1987 the subject proposal was brought before the
Planning Commission. During the public hearing, questions arose
regarding the project's impact on adjacent residences. The
Planning Commission tabled the proposalr directing the applicant
to meet with neighbors adjacent to the project site and address
their concerns through revised plans.
- 1 -
\Z-A-
JAN 261988
r j ~u
On November 2, 1987, after a public hearingr the Planning
commission approved revised plans for a 4 story plus 10ft, 10
unit condominium. The Planning Commission, at that time, also
granted variances allowing the maximum lot coverage of 50% to be
exceeded by 3%, and allowing a 10' front yard setback in lieu of
the required 20' front yard setback.
The plans approved by the Planning Commission reflected the
applicants attempt to address neighborhood concerns. There was
not, however, a consensus among the neighbors as to the adequacy
of those proposed modifications. It is the contention of some
members of the neighborhood that the proposed building should be
reduced in height and bulk and that the applicants modifications
did not address their concerns.
A more detailed project description may be found in the Planning
commission staff report dated October 19, 1987 (Attachment B),
and the project plans which are attached. The Planning
commission statement of Official Action is contained in
Attachment C.
ANALYSIS
The project was originally designed using 1/2 the rear alley in
calculating the lot coverage. Subsequently, the Zoning
Administrator determined that 1/2 the rear alley could not be
used in lot coverage calculations. The Zoning Administrator I s
interpretation was upheld by the Planning Commission on August 3r
1987.
- 2 -
,~ ~
Excluding 1/2 the rear alley from lot coverage calculationsr the
proposal exceeds the 50% maximum lot coverage requirement,
imposed under SMMC section 9110.B.9r by approximately 3%.
staff supports the applicant's request for a variance from the
lot coverage requirement imposed under SMMC section 9110. B. 9.
Staff's support is based on the following facts: 1) the proposal
was submitted prior to the Planning Commission upholding the
Zoning Administrator's decision on the calculation of lot
coverage, 2) The project is below density, 15 units are permitted
and 10 are proposed; and, 3) The project is of a good design and
contains adequate landscaped open space.
As a resul t of meetings between the developer and the
neighborhood required by the Planning Commission at the September
21, 1987 meeting, the proposed structure was moved 12' to the
west creating a 10' front yard setback. A 20' front yard setback
is required by code.
staff supports the applicant's proposal to provide a 10' front
yard setback in lieu of the required 20' front yard setback.
staff supports this request based on two facts: 1) the proposed
front yard will conform with the majority of existing front yard
setbacks in the area; and, 2) The 10' front yard setback has been
proposed in order to mitigate the structure's impact on adjacent
residences to the east and south. By moving the proposed
building away from existing residences to the east and south the
potential blockage of light, air and ventilation will be reduced.
In addition, the increased rear yard area will be landscaped,
- 3 -
,~ !c
thereby providing a more adequate buffer between the existing and
proposed structures.
other than the variance requests, the proposal meets all other
Municipal Code requirements. The proposal is not subject to the
Ocean Park Interm Zoning Ordinance as the application was deemed
complete prior to the July 28, 1987 cutoff date imposed under the
ordinance.
CONSIDERATION
In acting on this itemr the City Council may deny the appeal and
approve the Conditional Use Permit with the findings and
conditions contained in the November 2r 1987 Planning Commission
statement of Official Action; may uphold the appeal by denying
the Conditional Use Permit; or otherwise act to approver
condi tiona11y approve r or deny the proj ect as it deems
appropriate.
Any City Council action is limited to the approval or denial of
the CUP which has a 20 day appeal period. The variance appeal
period is only 10 days and the appeal letter was submitted 18
days after Planning Commission approval of the project. Denial
of the CUP will not allow the proposed 10 unit condominium to
proceed, effectively upholding the subj ect appeal. Conversely r
denial of the appeal will allow the applicant to go forward with
the project.
- 4 -
~ r
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendations presented in this report do not have a budget
or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
staff respectfully recommends that the City Council deny the
appeal and approve Tentative Tract Map 45570, Conditional Use
Permit 469 and ZA 5258-Y with the findings and conditions
contained in the November 2, 1987, Planning Commission statement
of Official Action.
Prepared by: Larry Miner, Assistant Planner
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
Planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
LM:nh
PC/CC45570
12/11/87
Attachments: A. Letter of Appeal by Charles Wachtel.
B. October 19r 1987 Planning Commission Staff
Report.
C. November 2r 1987 Planning Commission statement
of Official Action.
D. Project Plans.
- 5 -
r ~ l-
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Farivar, Hecht, Lambert, Perlman, Pyne
Mechur, Nelson
I hereby certify that this statement of
accurately reflects the final determination
Commission of the City of Santa Monica.
STCUP469
LM:nh
11/04/87
signature
print name and title
- 6 -
Official Action
of the Planning
date
ATl)\Ql~5rn- /'t
November 20, 1987
CITY OF SA."'~~ ~9~,i::-'
116 Pacific ell)' PDN~ ~':r-,c.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
"51 tiN 20 f' 2 :37
Santa Monica Planning COmmissIon
1685 Main st.
Santa MonIca, CA 90401
Dear planning CommissIon Members,
RE: Letter of Appeal
Please place as publIC record the followIng appeal agaInst
acceptance of (C.U.P. 469, T.T.M. 45570 and ZA 5258 Y,
2203 Ocean Ave. R4) a 4 story (50 ft.) tall 10 unit condomInium
complex which was voted on and accepted condItionally by only 5
commIssioners on November 2, 1987.
We are exercising our rIght to appeal thIS proJect for the
following reasons:
a. ProJect covers more than the allowed 50% lot coverage, and
therefore IS not in compliance with current standards at time
of appllcatlon nor at time of hearing.
b. ProJect is encroachIng 10 ft. Into the 20 ft. front yard
setback WhlCh IS not In compliance wIth current standards at
time of applIcation nor at time of hearIng.
c. proJect hearIngs and commissIoners dId not recognize the
attached petItIon WhIch conta1ned 86 S1gnatures of neighbors
requesting the commIssion to "not accept this project".
Please see Items 1 and 2 of petItIon for actlons requested.
There are a var1ety of reasons th1s proJect should not have been
accepted and therefore a letter wIll follow this appeal request
lIsting those reasons.
Attached to this appeal request IS check #2413 dated 11-19-87
wrltten In the amount of $75.00 and payable to the city of Santa
Monica.
This appeal is being made on behalf of myself and on behalf of
th petitioners.
Wachtel
cc: Honorable CIty Council Members
Attachment
September, 1987
~~E ~ o{' 1
lYe, the neighbors of 2203 Ocean A venue, in Ocean Park, wi.<:h to preserve the character and spirit of
our neighborhood, and therefore, request the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica to
take the following action regarding the currently prop(lSed development at 2203 Ocean Ave.:
1. M~intain the 3O-foot (2-story) height limit previously
required by the Coastal Colllllilision, to which other
developments in the area have been held since 1980.
2. Deny the requested variance to allow lot coverage calcu!ation
to use 1/2 the alley along Ocean Court.
~(printed): STG'\'".\ nJRE: ADDRESS: PHO:\'E:
1 .:.~~~~__---_LitArf'..CU'df.r~--~----_Q!i.'i':'!i:.7'1 3
2. _ ~.::__~____JLgJ~~~~ctlLS:t____~-=-CfJ b/
3 ~~ ----___________Jl~1~___~lt~~1~~~___~i2_~_~l
~
2of7
\ ~ September, 1987
'We, the neighbors of 2203 Ocean Avenue, in Ocean Park, wish to presel"Ve the character and spirit of
our neighborhood, and therefore, request the Planning Commission 01" the City of Santa Monica to
take the following action regarding the currently proposed development at 2203 Ocem Ave.:
1. Maintain the 3O-foot (2-story) height limit pre"iousIy
required by the Coastal Commission, to which other
developments in the area have been held since 1980.
2. Deny the requested l'ariance to allow lot coverage calculation
to use 1/2 the alley along Ocean Court.
&11E.(printed): STG"\ <\ llJRE: ADDRESS: PHO'\"E:
.4 E-'r!.b..f.&+LLMlQ____1-4IA!!1~____lJ.Iz}p~q_6~~t______~1.f~.f!!f:L
5 -~----,~--~--------------------------
(.. ~~1~~_\S~--~:-----l:t-~.J~"i-~~~-----1~2.:-~Y..t V-
1 ~:;-t4d.m~_-~ ~12f"J.)#i~_fL__~U~.f&Q.. ~~____3.?k.:.~9.1
S 1).J \J 10 L ~ ~ -P<-- L "L 'LI Q<~ 7-;t~ sA- ~
---~----------------~~----------~-----------------
'7 ~g_Lt!1ffrjj.f:?~~~= .,'J ~~L..tl~___3J3=-=~?(J Y
/0 ~-~~~ft!~;-~. i'r~.._--.--k--~~.L_Q~---~~-- _,
1/ ~r7fJ'~~:r- .~ ,;-U_fItx:o", ~ . -StQS}tJc)
13 _ ~~' ___1+..Q:.ITT:::r0QF".w..~__~~~~!2.'l~"'T-..3.Ct~L~2L.JLj,-
/4 ~~. __1'2j1-k..E.ff~$__.J,.'f..JJ_LJM<iy.zl....2'l:lH J
/5 ~~~~_ __~_ ~_L~Q_J.1104;.~iJ;.r_~_~2-____2-_q2-_~____
Ccyol ~~ Caqje 80..t.Vf'/l :Z/~ Poc.!:, S/;,. 3f:<"511/&
~; ~~-~kJA!=~_~--~~i~~=~~:i~
1'1 'I 'I 2'!ll':z::__l'f--ciCL~_ _"C:_~JJ=.~~~___1.~:!!Z:!.
;2 0 _~_~_1{;}~~1t;J~71s!~S---6r---;-;i------
2.1 __;jfA::tb_~_~~\f1EA__-1~~_ 'PCi~~LC___L_-!tl---9(, fI=----------
.L~ I
3of7
September, 1987
\Ve, the neighbors of 2203 Ocean Avenue, in Ocean Park, wish to presenrethe character and spirit of
our neighborhood, and therefor/:, request the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica to
take the following action regarding the currently proposed development at 2203 Ocean Ave.~
1. Maintain the 3O-foot (2-story) height limit previously
required by the Coastal Commk<oion, to which other
de,'elopments in the area have been held since 1980.
2. Deny the requested ,'3riance to allow lot coverage calculation
to use 1/2 tbe alley along Ocean Court.
~(printed): SIG'\'.\ TIJRE: ADDRESS: PHOXE:
U ~!'Z:2~1'"-~---~t~----JL{L2~~.k5L.---'J.2Dl--]J-
2:> Ckl~lEE2_~_~_ ________liJoM~~Q~_?..J____~~..:.@4.
24 ~_~-----__---------L~!~-~~~-~~--1E9-~Q&b
2-~ _....-' .'ih-_{l~~_.:JA:AE.:.-~~.:t~____!?_<f_-F~s:6~_5i.:.-___~~~':L~.. 1.5-
2 (0 .G...:.~_JB~n.A..Gr..0~____i~~2~~..Sl--,___3ff.~~tt
2 7 __ ~_~__1!.Il~Q.. _ _{;:.:.T__...122.dTffLl.N..~_C:___~J~.:?/l..t g
~ r - ~~~~o fi
2'0 ___0!.._...b.E L '--_J~~..,.6.qA-LO_________
?-"I ~%,n___ "L fCl' ~,Q2_?fpJQd:L_~!L't0.(d.7
Me< -?!!!l:-Lgfff'----~:------ __~.::~LE1::g:'l!,(,,],,__5:L~I~_~01
:: __ -=--I~! ::?~!~~~~~~=fit,-~=~~==~~~~s:2 3
3 4- ~f~~~2- -----------JP-~~~1-----~f}~-7f2:1
3 <;'_~-~II'----------h;;65'/11J-.L~-L---~2'L:DS(
3t. LJ:~1-1!.L-..LdJ.~-_----------J21~!!d-5l-Zt"y., _3_'14-_7l12-
~, ~~, AftJ/:,H' - --- '= ---i?1-5iJ!1JLr~---_12L'i3~J
,~-- - -_i!:-L7!rJl:L::'!:';2--2'170.("~'13
----~----1L- _~____L~5_~~_J_~___~7d_~~f
\~
<4 or; J
September, 1987
l\'e, the neighbors of 2203 Ocean A venue, in Ocean Park, wish to presen'e the character and spirit of
our neighborhood, and therefore, request the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica to
take the following action regarding the currently proposed development at 2203 Ocean Ave.:
1. Maintain the 3O-foot (2-story) height limit previously
required by the Coastal Commission, to which other
developments in the area have been held since 1980.
2. Deny tbe requested \'3Jiance to allow lot C()\'erage calculation
to use 1'2 the alley along Ocean Court.
N,'~lE(.rinted): ~ADDRFSS: PII0'-':
AD ~W.Q~!:~ER-_X "_ ",-,-'__ ~L'b_L_~!::!..[)___2~~9:V-Cf
4/ fCtQ.?-LEQL~Y..~~_L~__ .1)_)_ ~__~L1:2 ~
~ /3..A--~ (do IE ~ot-~'I 117~,.L ~ 5 M
~ li-o,,-~---7~!--, ~---~\~~V--i ?OI--Q{F-~-----2fMO~-
44 . v.11l ~~=~i~z~;;~~.,?L.zS~~
45 .~~c1..2..'3.P-'LQ~_~_a,;;tol.P~ ~
40 ~_~___ "f"/K--7"-----~~~Z-~~7/7--~~~A1!.L.:-~1~
47 _ ~__cJ,):P7_[J~~~L_E!!:2..Z..!.1_~!!J_
46 ~ ct~~z_~~q---------~--
49 _J--3.e.LQ~__.l1!L.?-__~i_~~J!Jll.\J!:::_
50 _ _ 7;Jr"=-~LEj1L?::SJEL0L~~__2.'!.1:'~D
01 _~___ ____~______~}~~_O{e~__~!J~~_~~________
62- _ ~~ ~~__2:~9.1_i)~__/~=::L~::.?--~:..~":::-.:.-----
53 ~ ~~Q2.tJ~..Ll.c::1:_Jf7-2.D---J2z.----
?4 a 3 () ~_JJ...~lhJft_7/!~~O..J.:.--
~5r ~Q_L---~-~---~~--~Jtg~--:~--
5~ r~~~~-}~\~---~'I~-------. '
57 ). ~l__Qf_Jj\d_~---~e~-~-Clt_~tu-
50+ 7
September, 1981
We, the neighbors of 2203 Ocean A vm~e. in Ocean Park. v;ish to pres2rve the character and spirit of
our nt ighborhood, and therefore, request the Planning Commission of tbe City of Santa l\'fonica to
take the following action regarding the currmtly proposed development at 2203 Ocean Ave.:
-
t
i
t
1. Maintain the 3O-foot (Z-story) height limit previously
required by the Coastal ConunL~on, to which other
developments in the area have been held since 1980.
2. Deny the requested ,'ariance to allow Jot lXlverage calculation
to use 112 the alley along Ocean Court.
NA1\1E.(printed): STr."I41TRE: ADDRESS: PHO''E:
5<> -i~""".L~!?r.i&1__~~_____;j!!'L~A&-____"'E_~-k
71 L/MIr-w-L~- - - -- - __~l~_~~~LiJj/&__
v6 _~_u~~1t~ji~___ _____ t ~__________
hI _~~B8~_____~_~, __~ _____________________
bZ -fr:..IL.-'-rJ.._t:(!?-..iJ..e.2_~1i."-~~~]-~-JJ-~~2.;f..'i:~.21.(, 7
(..} ~~~-E::~~--=_--::.-~~::::::-T\---:.~~~.;rL-dZ.Z.:.<XJ.fIf,
64 _e.~LV..hL'l:..ttY~L~~__.(;;41.~a:~_--~-'J-uC~-p.;J---~2::11'!O
be:: fl;.J~)i~~~~~~~tiLl~_~~ _W!i~_1t'}J__:::!~!.?l~
~ ) r- I' Y
t,b ~~_~_~~l~_ ~r2-1_~~_~~__~.:ifi:z..-.2#Y
c. 7 ~&~ '__~HlJZY.___ _ _ _~__2:J.!.J__Q..~€.1.Y_~__~::L~___1~'1D
6S _ '__ ~-1~ _~_________lL~~~~~]__3i~~JS1___
61 --- ---~~-!~~igpy~--2J....:I-=~-~~-~-~~l<j
7~~ r~ '~~~A'~-~~-~-------1------------
'7 ( ___~~_--2j!'L_~--------~~-:2!.~j)
72 ~~~ ':0:-- n ~'I;~~~ --
.L~~________~'-~:1...~_~ D~ l_AQ.:.l.~~'~~ \
73 /?~~~_~~_:!2;..~.P3-'_~__~~__"J-:!~_~~:!t!:.f.._~99- v.t:
"7:1~s:iL'CI..--Jjfi&!,..;;;.f;M<1L/l3-Q~~~-3..'ld - /LI.J-i.
75' I~,..._~-])~_15..'L_--rg}.ft.~*~-~9-2~'l,g .~/!?&
,
Co!?
--
September, 1987
We, the neighbors of 2203 Ocean Avenue, in Ocean Park, wish to presene the character and spirit of
our neighborhood, and therefore, request the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica to
take the following action regarding the currently proposed development at 2203 Ocean Ave.:
1. l\flIintain the 3O-foot (2-story) height limit previously
required by the Coastal Commi~oo, to which other
developments in the area have been held since 1980.
2. Deny the requested variance to allow lot co\'erage calculation
to use 1J2 the alley along Ocean Court.
~(printed): SIG'i'ATl'RE: ADDRESS' PHO\'E'
"7~ ~~ rnrl (\~OLr,_~~~~ d IClJ2r,-bt'_..$t.:!lP:Z~~~~
77 '6-.2.€..I{€1f.er)j___________...,~_____':.!_____.itJQre_}_r~~lJ:_7
- ~--7 )II' . . r. Sl-l1 '? 0 <:; c(,?-I
7~ _~~~D~~~:5 - ~J~~~~+~r~-~~2---~~1~-~-~L~~-~2-"1
71 ~LC::V'Lf~':~_-t - / ~ ~_.lLZ~6r_~~.i4o.1...-2i~~~;:z
-
----------------------------------------------------
7017
September, 1987
We, the neighbors of 2203 Ocean A venue, in Ocean Park, wish to presen'e the charocter and spirit of
our neighborhood, and therefore, request the Planning Commission of the Cit)' of Santa Monica to
take the roUowing action regarding the currenU,)" proposed development at 2203 Ocean Ave.:
1. Maintain the JO.foot (2-story) height limit previously
required by the Coastal Commission, to which other
developments in the area have been held since 1980.
2. Deny the requested \'llriance to allow lot alverage calculation
to use 112 the alley along Ocean Court.
"(printed): ~. .. ADDRESS: PHO\~;
8<J \~-I1~LLIlliu..___- ~___~_J{~L~~~~.!~~_~.:!_~" -ir6-fJ.
61 _' ''1-~M------_...: td.~____.:LD!I.Jt~'h-.M~~!)2fl'1'ti4!
g z ~(, ~-2.~;-jh>'1it:1.~-!:~.tJ..-~!.?L-t2:;.l2-:...~'!::~1?l..-79K L..
6t3 ___ ~n~_!1 ~~~/k~tu _:J-.!2-~(~~~~__5J.r -o~
51 _______ ____ ~JzJ~~~IJr:a~-L.4L--:1.1--~.:.-~-]-7}-:f}J6
Sl'" pf'J};r:z2a'__ Of'bI..l1!~_J___.:J__....;tl__'!__JjErJ-2 11:
Bb if~-~~~--~~~~~~~~_-____--__71~_Q~_~~__~2f-C'Sb
~
. .
1iTTk.~ 13
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
community and Economic Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
october 19, 1987
TO:
The Honorable Planning Commission
Planning Staff
FROM:
SUBJECT: CUP 469, TTM 45570, ZA 5258-Y; 10 Unit Condominium
Proposal.
Address:
Applicant:
2203 Ocean Avenue
Joe Steinberg
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subj ect property is a 12,975 square foot parcel located on
the east side of Ocean Avenue between Pacific Street and Strand
Street, having a frontage of approximately 95'. Surrounding uses
consist of mUlti-family residential to the north, south and east
(R4) and beach parking to the west (R4).
Zoning District:
R4
Land Use District:
High Density Housing
Parcel Area:
12,975 square feet
PROPOSED PROJECT
The applicants are proposing to construct a 4 story plus loft, 10
unit condominium. Proposed are 7 3-bedroom units and 3 2-bedroom
units with both single and split level configurations. A total
of 22 subterranean parking spaces are proposed with all access
taken off a 20' rear alley. Access to the individual units is
obtained via interior hallways located on each floor. Interior
stairways and an elevator will provide access to each floor, the
subterranean garage and the roof top deck. A central lobby will
be located on the first floor and will be accessible from Pacific
street and Ocean Avenue.
On May 7, 1987 the Rent Control Board granted a removal permit
for the single family dwelling existing on the subject site. The
conditions of that removal permit call for the provision of a
moderate income condominium on site, and a subsidized low income
rental unit off site.
- 1 -
7A-
.
e
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed project is inconsistent with the Municipal Code and
in confonnance with the General Plan as shown in Attachment A.
The subject proposal is inconsistent with the Municipal Code in
that the maximum lot coverage requirement has been exceeded, and
the required front yard setback is not provided.
CEQA STATUS
The proposed project is Categorically Exempt per City of Santa
Monica Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA; class 3(2).
FEES
The proposed 10 unit condominium is subject
Recreation Facilities Tax of $200.00 per unit,
Facilities Tax of $1,000.00 per saleable unit.
to a Park and
and a Condominium
BACKGROUND
On september 21, 1987 the subject proposal was brought before the
Planning commission. At that time questions arose concerning the
proj ect 's impact on adj acent residences. The Commission
subsequently tabled the proposal directing the applicant to meet
with adjacent neighbors and address their concerns. The
applicant met with neighbors on September 27, 1987 and proposed
various changes to the building. The project was further amended
prior to the October 5, 1987 Planning Commission meeting. staff
did not have sufficient time to review the revised plans and
re-notice the proposal to include an additional variance request.
The commission opened the proposal for public hearing and the
applicant and various neighbors spoke on the revised plans. The
commission continued the proposal to this, the October 19,
meeting directing the applicant to submit revised, scaled down,
plans which take into accout neighborhood concerns. Revised
plans have been submitted, and the proposal has been
appropriately noticed for public hearing.
ANALYSIS
The subject proposal meets all Planning and Zoning requirements
concerning height and density. At 10 units, the proposal is
under the maximum allowable density of 15 units. A total of 22
parking spaces are proposed, exceeding City requirements by 2
spaces. The proposed structure is approximately 44 feet in
height to the top of the roof. stainvay and elevator enclosures
exceed the 50 foot height limit by 1 to 2 feet, however, this is
pennitted under SMMC Section 9126.B.
The parking plan has been approved by the parking and Traffic
Division, and the tract map has been approved by the City
Engineer.
- 2 -
.
.
As a result of the developer/neighborhood meetings the proposed
structure has been moved from its original location 12' to the
west and l' to the north. In addition, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th
floors of the building are each stepped back 1'-3" along the rear
1/3 of the north and south elevations and along the entire width
of the east elevation. other revisions to the project include
placing planter boxes along the east elevation below the
balconies of units Cl and C2, reducing the roof parapet from 36"
to 18" and landscaping the increased rear yard area with trees
and other screening vegetation.
The applicants proposal to provide a 10' front yard setback in
lieu of the required 20' front yard setback requires the granting
of a variance by the Commission. staff supports this request
based on two reasons: 1) The proposed front yard will conform
with the majority of existing front yard setbacks in the area
(see Attachment B); and 2) The lO' front yard setback has been
proposed in order to mitigate the structures impact on adjacent
residences to the east and south. Staff feels that the patios
located along the front of the structure should not encroach into
the proposed 10 I front yard setback. This would allow a more
adequate landscape area to be provided along the front of the
structure.
As submitted, the subj ect proposal exceeds the 50% maximum lot
coverage permitted under SMMC Section 9110B.9. The project was
designed using 1/2 of the rear alley in calculating lot coverage,
and as such meets code requirements. The Zoning Administrators
interpretation on the matter, which was upheld by the Planning
commission on August 3, 1987, however, excluded 1/2 the rear
alley from lot coverage calculations. Subsequently, the proposal
exceeds the 50% maximum lot coverage requirement by approximately
3%.
staff supports the applicants request for a variance from the lot
coverage requirement imposed under S!{MC Section 9110B.9. staff's
support is based on the fact that the proposal was submitted
prior to the Planning Commission upholding the Zoning
Administrators recent decision. The project is also below
density, is of a good design and contains adequate landscaped
open space. Staff, therefore supports the request for a variance
from lot coverage requirements based on the hardship of
redesigning the project to the new standard and based on the good
design of the project as submitted. In addition, the 2,000
square feet of floor area gained through the increased lot
coverage has been reduced to less than a l,Oee square feet due to
the floor area lost from stepping back the the building on the
2nd, 3rd and 4th floors.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that CUP 469, Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 45570 and ZA 5258-Y (lot coverage and front yard
variances) be approved with the following findings and
conditions:
- 3 -
.
.
TENTATIVE PARCEL/TRACT 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.
2. The site is physically sui table for the proposed type of
development.
3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements
will not cause substantial environmental damage or
sUbstantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat.
4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will
~ not cause serious public health problems.
5. 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.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The proposed use and location are in accordance with good
zoning practice, in the public interest and necessary that
substantial justice be done.
2. The proposed use is compatible with existing and potential
uses within the general area, traffic or parking congestion
will not result, the public health, safety and general
welfare are protected and no harm to adjacent properties will
result.
VARIANCE FINDINGS
1. The strict application of the provisions of the zoning
ordinance would result in practical difficulties or
unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose
and intent of the Zoning ordinance (Article IX, SM}1C).
2. There are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved and to the intended use and
development of the property that do not apply generally to
other property in the same zone or neighborhood in that the
proj ect on this property was designed under the assumption
that 1/2 of the alley would be included in the lot coverage
calculation.
3. The granting of a variance would not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements ~n such zone or neighborhood in
which the property is located in that the project is under
the permitted density for the property and ample open space
is being provided for the units proposed.
- 4 -
.
.
4. The granting of a variance is essential or desirable to the
public convenience or welfare and not in conflict with the
General Plan, and will not be materially detrimental or
injurious to the property or improvements in the immediate
neighborhood.
TENTATIVE PARCEL/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 engineer
and approved by the City Engineer.
2. Before the city Engineer may approve the final map, a
subdivision improvement agreement for all off site
improvements required by the City Engineer shall be prepared
.. and a performance bond posted through the Ci ty Attorney I s
office.
3. The tentative map shall expire 24 months after approval,
except as provided in the provisions of California Government
Code Section 66452.6 and Sections 9380-9382 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code. During this time period the final map
shall be presented to the city of Santa Monica for approval.
4.
The developer shall provide the Engineer
City of Santa Monica with one Dizal Cloth
and microfilm of each sheet of the
recordation.
Department of the
print reproduction
final map after
5. Prior to approval of the final map, Condominium Association
By-Laws (if applicable) and a Declaration of CC & Rls shall
be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The CC & R's
shall contain a nondiscrimination clause as presented in
section 9392 (SM}!C) and in the case of condominiums, contain
such provisions as are required by Section 9122E (SMMC).
6. The developer shall provide for payment of a Condominium Tax
of $1,000 per saleable residential unit per the provisions of
section 6651 et seq. of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
7. The form, contents, accompanying data, and filing of the
final subdivision map shall conform to the provlsions 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 final map shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County
Recorder prior to issuance of any building permit for a
condominium project pursuant to Government Code section
66499.30.
9. A Park and Recreation Facilities Tax of $200.00 per
residential unit shall be due and payable at the time of
issuance of a building permit for the construction or
placement of residential unit on the subject lot, per and
- 5 -
.
.
subject to the provisions of Section 6670 etseq of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code.
SPECIAL CONDITION
1. The ARB shall pay particular attention to ensure that all
building elevations are articulated and that the overall
design of the building compliments the neighborhood.
STANDARD CONDITIONS
1. The Conditional Use Permit shall be of no further force or
effect if TTM 45570 expires prior to approval of the Final
Map for said tract.
2. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash
r enclosures, and signage shall be subject to review and
approval by the Architectural Review Board.
3. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by
the Director of Planning. A significant change in the
approved concept shall be subj ect to Planning Commission
Review. Construction shall be in substantial conformance
with the plans submitted or as modified by the Planning
Commission, Architectural Review Board or Director of
Planning.
4. The rights granted herein shall be effective only when
exercised within a period of one year from the effective date
of approval. Upon the written request of the applicant, the
Director of Planning may extend this period up to an
additional six months.
5. The applicant shall comply with all legal requirements
regarding provisions for the disabled, including those set
forth in the ~alifornia Administrative Code, Title 24, Part
2.
6. Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be subject
to the review ad approval of the Parking and Traffic
Engineer.
7. Project design shall comply with the building energy
regulations set forth in the California Administrative Code,
Title 24, Part 2, (Energy Conservation standards for New
Residential Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of
a Building Permit.
8. Natural light shall be provided in at least one bathroom in
each dwelling unit.
9. street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as
required in a manner consistent wi th the ci ty I S Tree Code
(Ord. 1242 CCS), per the specifications of the Department of
Recreation and Parks and the Department of General Services.
- 6 -
.
.
No street tree shall be removed without the approval of the
Department of Recreation and Parks.
10. street and/or alley lighting shall be provided on public
rights-of-way adjacent to the project if and as needed per
the specifications and with the approval of the Department of
General Services.
II. Any outdoor lighting shall be shielded and/or directed away
from adjacent residential properties, with any such lighting
not to exceed 0.5 foot candles of illumination beyond the
perimeter of the subject property.
12. This determination shall not become effective for a period of
ten days (twenty days for Development Review Permits and
Conditional Use Permits) from the date of determination or,
.. if appealed, until a final determination is made on the
appeal.
13. No noise generating equipment shall b e placed adjacent to
neighboring residential buildings.
INCLUSIONARY UNIT CONDITIONS
1. The developer shall covenant and agree with the City of Santa
Monica to the specific terms, conditions and restrictions
upon the possession, use and enjoyment of the subject
property, which terms, conditions and restrictions shall be
recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office as a
part of the deed of the property to ensure that two
affordable units are provided and maintained over time and
through subsequent sales of the property. An affordable unit
shall be defined as being affordable to households with
incomes not exceeding 100% of the (BUD) Los Angeles County
median income, expending not over 25% of monthly income on
housing costs, as specified by the Housing Division of the
Department of Community and Economic Development.
This agreement shall be executed and recorded prior to
approval of the Final Map. Such agreement shall specify 1)
responsibilities of the developer for making the unites)
available to eligible tenants and 2) responsibilities 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.
This provision is intended to satisfy the inclusionary
housing requirements of Program 12 of the Housing Element of
the General Plan of the City of Santa Monica ("Program 1211).
Developer may satisfy the obligations created by this
Agreement by demonstrating to the Director of Planning
compliance with any ordinance or resolution adopted by the
City within two years from the effective date of this
approval, which is intended to provide an alternative method
for compliance with program 12. An alternative method may
be, but is not limited to, the payment of a fee in-lieu of
- 7 -
.
.
providing an Affordable Unit. In the event Develop fully
complies with such ordinance of resolution.
Prepared by: Larry Miner, Assistant Planner
LM:ca
pc/CUP469
10/09/87
,
- 8 -
.
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Category
Permitted Use
Height
Setbacks
Front yard
sideyard
Rearyard
Parking
Lot Coverage
Land Use
Municipal Code Element
20'-0"
9'-0"
15'-0" from
centerline of
alley
20 parking spaces
required
50%
1 unit/900 sq.
ft.
4 stories/50'-
0"
- 9 -
.
Project
1 unit/l,297.5 sq.
ft.
4 stories/44'-0"
10'-0"
9'-0" N elev.
11'-0" S elev.
27'-0" from
centerline of
alley
22 parking spaces
provided
53%
.
.
CITY OF S.\ ~!';" ~ MONIC'">
CITY PLAtiri'- ~ OFFICe
John Chl1ton
2215 Ocean Ave., #C
Santa Monlca, CA 90405
"87 OCT 13 AID :39
October 14, 1987
To the Santa Monlca Plannlng CommlSSlon:
RE: 2203 Ocean Ave~, Proposed condomlnlum proJect
I am a tenant at 2215 Ocean Avenue. I 11ve In the garage apartment at
tpe rear of the property. If anybody IS gOlng to be effected by thlS new
proJect, It IS me. My unlt wl11 be eleven feet fron thelr ~ulldlng.
And yet, I support thlS proposal.
The Clty of Santa Monlca has rules about development and these bUllders
have followed them. There has to be some new growth In town. Some lots are
empty or nearly so. Some places are falllng down and not rep~able. ThlS
lot next door to me IS one of these. People need houslng. Let's let In the
few developers who are wl11lng to follow the rules, amend thelr bUlldlng to
better SUlt the nelghbors and be responslble about development.
I urge your approval of the 2203 Ocean proJect
S,n'e,ely. lcPl-
John Chl1~ -
~,
. .
Howard Robl.nson
Gemstone Development, Inc.
1739 Wooster Street
Los Angeles, CA 90035
(213) 838-0391
October 14, 1987
Santa Monl.ca Plannl.ng COmml.SSlOn
1685 Maln Street
Santa Monl.ca, CA 90401
RE: 2203 Ocean AVenue (C.U.P. 469, T.T.M. 45570)
Planning COmml.SSlOn members:
,
LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE
The ground floor of the proposed bUlldl.ng l.S 3% over the newly
l.nterpreted lot coverage rule, but upper floors have been scaled
back to mlnlmlze ne9atl.ve lmpacts on ne19hbors.
At the tlme of our plan subml.ttal, July 10, 1987, rear
alleys were allowed In computing total lot area for lot coverage
calculatlons. The Zonl.ng Adml.nl.strator's l.nterpretation of
July 20,1987 changed thl.s rule and left our buildlng 3% over the
new defl.nl.tl.on of lot coverage. Technl.cally, we now need a
variance for what was prevlously allowed, but this is not-a
maJor issue, has not been opposed by communlty members and still
leaves more open space than any bUlldlng in the area.
The current bUlldl.ng desl.gn has ell.ml.nated most of the
saleable floor space resulting from the 3% lot coverage variance.
The current proposal features a "stepped-back" pattern to Units
C1, C2 and C3 thus openlng Vlews and lncreaslng aesthetl.c appeal
to nearby nelghbors.
The July 20 l.nterpretatl.on forced a request for an additl.onal
3% over the 50% lot coverage now allowed. The addl.tl.onal 3%
accounted for 500 square feet of lot coverage in our origlnal
buildlng deslgn presented September 21, 1987. In an effort to
mltlgate the additl.onal 500 square feet and satl.sfy some concerns
from nelghbors across the alley, we've cut 1000 square feet of
floor area at the rear of the bUl.ldlng. Thl.s redesl.gn results l.n
a stepped conflguratl.on, movlng a maJorl.ty of the rear of the
buildlng even further away from the property Ilne. We now have
from 42' to 46' between our buildl.ng and the hlgh-tech condo's
across the rear alley.
2203 Ocean Ave.,~ge 2
October 14, 1987
.
FRONT YARD VARIANCE
At the request of ne1ghbors, the bU1ld1ng has been moved forward
on the lot, requ1r1ng a var1ance for a 10' front yard. Th1S var1ance
1S requested solely as a m1t1gat1on factor to benef1t the ne1ghbors.
It does not Increase the Slze of the bU1ld1ng and has no f1nanc1al
1mpact, pos1t1ve or negat1ve, on the developers.
A 10' front yard set-back 1S tYP1cal along th1S port1on of
Ocean Avenue and 1S unl1kely to be changed 1n the forseeable future.
The hardsh1p of a shallow lot, along w1th a des1re to move the
bU1ldlng as far away as poss1ble from the ne1ghbors, has resulted in
thlS varlance request. The proposed la' front yard w1ll allow a
17' rear yard (27' from center of rear alley). Th1S w1ll produce
a~42' - 46' dlstance between the proposed bU1ld1ng and the existlng
four un1t condo at 116 Pac1f1C. Th1S pos1tlonlng effect1vely
el1m1nates any negat1ve 1mpacts due to shadows or blockage of
11ght and alr.
OVERALL PROJECT
The proJect lS well under allowable he1ght and dens1ty, lS des1gned
to be extremely sensltlve to nelghborlng resldents, provldes
substantlal contr1but1ons to lOW-lncome houslng, w1lI boost the local
tax base, and 1n general, 1S the type of proJect we bel1eve the
C1ty of Santa Monlca encourages.
Th1S bU1ld1ng w1ll contaln only 10 un1ts although 15 units
would be allowed. Thus, veh1cular and pedestrian traff1c are
reduced as are any negat1ve 1mpact on publ1C serV1ces.
We've done everyth1ng we can to meet the somet1mes competlng
demands of three const1tuenC1es: 1) CIty regulatlons, 2) deslgn
requests from ne1ghbors, and 31 econom1C real1ties of the project.
We hope you wlll agree we now have a blend that best SU1ts all
three.
Slncerely,
1-I-ow<rvJ W~
------
Howard Rob1nson
.
.
~loe Stelnben;l
Gemstone Development, Inc.
~946 Cl Ltb Dr.
Los Angeles. CA 90064
(~1:::) 8::8-7750
Oct. 12. 1987
Sant~ MonIca PlannIng CommIssIon
1685 MaIn Street
Santa MonIca, CA 90401
RE: 2203 Ocean Ave. IC.U.P. 469, T.T.M 45570)
..
Dear PlannIng CommIssIon Members:
I was not at the meetIng of Sept. 21. when my
p0rtner, Howard RobInson, requested a varIance of 500
sq. ft. of lot coverage due to the new InterpretatIon
of the lot coverage sectIon of the cIty code.
I dId lIsten to a tape of the meetIng and It was
clear that staff had approved our request and three of
the commISSIoners were favorably dIsposed. It was at
the suggestIon of on~ of the commISSIoners that the
neIghbors needs be further consIdered, that my partner
offered d plan wherpby we would lase 500 square feet of
saleable space and the lSSUe was put over to Oct. 5.
The day I returned to the CIty, we met WIth the
neIghbors In the condomlnlum dlrectly east of our
proJect. We were all confused as to what we could do,
for we dldn"t know what the plannIng commISSIon would
spprove. The proposal to move the bUIldIng forward came
from the homeowners. We all agreed that thIS was a
goad way to help them, but we had no ~nowledge as to
whether you would allow thIS. We also agreed on plans
to lower the parspet and put In addItIonal landscapIng,
but could not agree on how much of the bUlldlng should
be CL\t awoOlY.
From our standpOInt. we felt that most of the
problems of aIr flow, shadows, and mass. wer~ solved by
the mutually acceptable pOJnts. At that tIme. I
perscnoOllly thought that we would,never satIsfy the four
neIghbors In the condo to the east unless we lImIted
our structure to a helght of 30 feet and we would
slways be deadlocked. My partner dlsaqrees WIth me, he
thought we were clo.e to consensus.
After acceptIng the Idea of movIng the bUIldIng
forward, my partner ard I met agaIn WIth our archItects
to see If we could meet more of the deSIres of the
. .
n~lqMburs. It w~~ then that we c.ma up with the Idea
of l'lcremental st;..":!p b",c~ S Ul the r-e=>r- of the bUllchng
.J.nd l-lc'ped th", I: 1 f the nel gbol" S conc.urr-ed, thf?
c::omml<;;~;lon wallld O'c:cept our JOInt des31re. ThJ5 plan did
not Incr-ease our saleable sp~ce~ but d1d lnc~~~se our
footprInt. Although the neIghbors were In accurd th~t
thiS w~s the best proposal so far. they would not
acc\?pt It.
We debated whether we should cloud the Issue by
presentlnq a plan so late In the hearIngs. but after
phone diSCUSSIons with some of the members of the
comml.SJOn, we thought It wise to bring forw~rd what we
all agreed was the best plan to date.
We regret ~nd are sorry that we c.onfused thIS
m~tter. Our sincere deSire to address communIty
prabl ems has hurt our caLIse. f~)r- members who supported
OLlr" or-I qlnal V~rl ance request now seem to be perple>:ed
by the three V?rlatlons proposed.
We presented thIS prOject at several neIghborhood
meetIngs and the reSIdent. at 2213 Ocean Ave., our
souther-n neighbor', who Will be 11 feet from QUI'"
bUIlding, produced three letters of support for the
proJect. They recognize th~t the eXistIng dIlapidated
bUilding In a yard overrun wlth weeds and refuge Will
be replaced by ~n attractive structure at a height
conslstant WJth other ocean front property. But ~he
reSidents at 116 PaCIfiC contInue to oppose It.
We"ve heard a great deal about maintaining the
IntegrIty of the neighborhood. Let.s examIne thiS.
116 PaCifiC has a 63% lot coverage, we are aS~lng for
5~%. They arE' 10 feet from their adjOIning neighbor,
we Will be ac.ross an alley 42 feet away at the ground
floor- Cjolng to 46 feet. They ",re :2 stories higher than
theIr n~lghbDr~ we Will be I story hIgher.
There are four condos Involv[~d at 116 F'aclflc,
One 15 not behind our proposed .tructure, One WIll
continue to see the ocean between the 11 feet
separatIon from our southerly neIghbor. One IS on a
corner faCing a street With a 15 foot setback. The
owner of the last unit ac~nowledges he ~new hiS unit
would eventually be bloc~ed and we have addressed hIS
que~tIon of ~lr flow. Aren't W~ co-operatIng wlth
those around u~ end ImprOVIng the neighborhood rather
thdn hurtIng It~ Shouldn't they co-operate With us~
In order to Simplify our appllc~tlDn, we are
returnIng to the bUilding foot prlnt as orIgInally
proposed. I remind you that thIS IS 50% lot coverage
ratIO under the rules In effect at the tlm~ our project
was 5ubmltt~d. We are also Includlnq a step plan that
Will gIve th~ neighbors a bUilding that IS 42 feet away
from theIr structure at ground floor end almost 46 feet
away at the top l~vpl. ~e Will lose slIghtly over 1000
.
.
'5qll""r~~ feEet of the orlglnc>lly pr-op[)~;ed btHdllng. wInch
the 5~% lot cover.ge would h~ve allowFd.
We feel th~t W~ have made e"ery effort to keep the
footprint at ~hat ~e considered 50% and hav~ lost a
qreat deal of Income to satisfy our ne]~hbors deSires.
We rDsp~clfully request th~t we be granted a front yard
Varl~nc~ to 10 feet; a foot prInt v~r18nce 04 3%~ and
~cc~pt~nc:e of our architectural cDnc~pt.
61ncerly,
cJ::=nberg
"
. /Jl~~"/~
~tdF;; h~t-itttTY OF SAN: A MONiCA
:f tP 1-0.1;) CITY PL A~r! .' 0r.:;:ICr
rJfv. ~ . ~ 'ffI IiYl~'t- tJt"1
:l1/14~%~ .
~ ~ tuyr
(lidltltVA .'
If-7
U /U~d1tJ /&h ~~ ~ ~ ~
- /
~/#. . ~~"~0f~r/ft-
~ii;~k,4l.kL3 &~4v V~.I
_ _ An /<Me 4~ ri!/UJU;to ~ ~
41t ~ ~ Mt ~7k ~ au1f;~.
~~~. . . ~t;,
Etuk~ ):;jull;:~" J>-#e ;~ .
~{;t1OM/ ~ . '1 .~
fv-to ~ "'~ ~- -~ ~
fe'~4;n ~ ,4 ~~~
1 )
A~ t::
/~ ifr
... I ! . ~/
- - ~
" s,
,
\ 0~ ~
f
p If It K '{;
378
1-1,
~ .
(0
"
,~....;
IP' . - ---
"
.'
~
r-tc
FRO~l~SON MAP
W ~ r~fs~1~CT 'if:fJ \t
fROJji 0 YAR 0
.sI.T~\(S
..
,
"
((
_J I
-
WI'
.
.
~.. ...I:!'?.... ......
@ BICKNEl..C.
00.
AV.
1, ~:::" :
o "
o .,
, r
: ~
- "'"
~.. .",.",,,
~;"ff
1-1"
I
I
,
.
~
@ I A..1i
---A-~~i
~
\
~
z
<(
!AI
lJ
o
~""li\"}.,1l'1i;~'
-- ~""\~-::\"]IIJ,-~~-r
AJNIJ.
rl
" ~I
Oft! . ·
'~LfJ'.) -\ v_,.. ~I. ~
t. KII'f:~'N ~ r.,,-,
~ i.} "III""A_:: .,- ....
l~i" ~.....~,.,/J - t I
I' .
.;;;1 1"" $ ......-.
, :r--i
~"";'"..I\',' 1.1\11.1,'..1...
.T1."';--;~;.~;'~~;-;- ...,.~"
-j=:J
... .1,- APTS
~ - ,ifuo.u..u
...
"'~
~ i
~+
,
<015 ~
q
-t.J
. I
I
....,..
II?
PACIFIC
KAL.E or fUT
~ . . . , , i
';. '.::__ ~ !(f -. J>C> ~H' -"";. "" 4t -ir -. "'.;,.
<1.. -<,) " ~ ':,:. ~ ~'~-l~.~
. .., .-- --g
:t~ ~ Ita ..
~. . z
I ~
_ 8~ .. ~'r7fJ III ~
'D ~ll!
,... 'i
,~ I
: .~ mfl-' ~ll If!
~ ~I - ..'
ZJ' :. ~ ~J . \j . ~--
.iI7 II' 4S
" ..
...
.. .
'b ..
~ ~
'"
o ~
o
1"1
>
~t. I [.., ~
if
---~~.ll:
1., -
~~~ . L
STRAND
J:.
. ..,
.:.___t..~__~___
. ...
_ IIr4JI /!~-D I>> hi"
f~ .. 121.! -- 4"
8 ~IU~;1 &~ ·
@ 1 b ..1 ~
I LlllJ;;
, .
.. -
. ..
"
80;
I _
@) !l0
.~-------~- HOLLISTER
N
(,,#:1"'......... ( ~
AV
~~
t~
I;
l~
1'1!
~
"
~
~ I~
l'L
. "1i
~
ss
'"
I
..P
~
~
;tI
/
/
./
/"~iIb.:
ATT^'HMElJT ~
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NUMBER: CUP 469, TTM 45570, ZA 5258-Y
LOCATION: 2203 Ocean Avenue
APPLICANT: Joe Steinberg
REQUEST: To construct a 4 story plus 10ft, 10 unit con-
dominium with subterranean parking for 22
automobiles.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
11/2/87
Date.
x
Approved based on the following findings and
subject to the conditions below.
Denied.
other.
TENTATIVE PARCEL/TRACT ~~p FINDINGS
1. TheJ?roposed subdivision, together with its provision for its
deslgn and improvements, is consistent with applicable
general and specific plans as adopted by the city of Santa
Monica.
2. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of
development.
3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements
will ~ot cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat.
4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will
not cause serious public health problems.
5. 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.
- 1 -
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The proposed use and location are in accordance with good
zoning practice, in the public interest and necessary that
substantial justice be done.
2. The proposed use is compatible with existing and potential
uses within the general area, traffic or parking congestion
will not result, the public health, safety and general
welfare are protected and no harm to adjacent properties will
result.
VARIANCE FINDINGS
1. The strict application of the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance would result in practical difficulties or
unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose
and intent of the Zoning Ordinance (Article IX, SMMC).
2. There are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved and to the intended use and
development of the property that do not apply generally to
other property in the same zone or neighborhood in that the
proj ect on this property was designed under the assumption
that 1/2 of the alley would be included in the lot coverage
calculation. In addition, the front yard varience is a
result of neighborhood meetings to lessen the impact of the
building on adjacent residences.
3. The granting of a variance would not be materially
det~imental to the public welfare or injurious to the
pro~erty or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in
which the property is located in that the proj ect is under
the permitted density for the property and ample open space
is being provided for the units proposed.
4. The granting of a variance is essential or desirable to the
public convenience or welfare and not in conflict with the
General Plan, and will not be materially detrimental or
injurious to the property or improvements in the immediate
neighborhood.
TENTATIVE PARCEL/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 engineer
and approved by the City Engineer.
2. Before the City Engineer may approve the final map, a
subdivision improvement agreement for all off site
improvements required by the city Engineer shall be prepared
and a performance bond posted through the City Attorney's
office.
- 2 -
3. The tentative map shall expire 24 months after approval,
except as provided in the provisions of California Government
Code Section 66452.6 and Sections 9380-9382 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code. During this time period the final map
shall be presented to the City of Santa Monica for approval.
4.
The developer shall provide the Engineer
City of Santa Monica with one Dizal Cloth
and microfilm of each sheet of the
recordation.
Department of the
print reproduction
final map after
5. Prior to approval of the final map, Condominium Association
By-Laws (if applicable) and a Declaration of CC & R's shall
be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The CC & R's
shall contain a nondiscrimination clause as presented in
Section 9392 (SMMC) and in the case of condominiums, contain
such provisions as are required by Section 9122E (SMMC).
6. The developer shall provide for payment of a Condominium Tax
of $1,000 per saleable residential unit per the provisions of
Section 6651 et seq. of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
7. The form, contents, accompanying data, and filing of the
final subdivision map shall conform to the provisions of
sections 9330 through 9338 (SMMC) and the Subdivision Map
Act. The required Final Map filing fee shall be paid prior
to scheduling of the Final Map for City Council approval.
8. The final map shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County
Recorder prior to issuance of any building permi t :tor a
condominium project pursuant to Government Code section
664~9.30.
.....
9. A Park and Recreation Facilities Tax of $200.00 per
residential unit shall be due and payable at the time of
issuance of a building permit for the construction or
placement of residential unit on the subject lot, per and
subject to the provisions of Section 6670 et seg of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. The ARB shall pay particular attention to ensure that all
building elevations are articulated and that the overall
design of the building compliments the neighborhood.
2. Balconies and patios located along the structure I s western
elevation shall not encroach into the 10' front yard setback.
Handicapped parking shall be provided,
location of which shall be reviewed and
Parking and Traffic Division.
4. All proposed projections into required yard areas shall
comply with section 9127.H. (SMMC).
3.
the number and
approved by the
- 3 -
STANDARD CONDITIONS
1. The Conditional Use Permit shall be of no further force or
effect if TTM 45570 expires prior to approval of the Final
Map for said tract.
2. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash
enclosures, and signage shall be subject to review and
approval by the Architectural Review Board.
3. 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 substantial conformance
with the plans submitted or as modified by the Planning
Commission, Architectural Review Board or Director of
Planning.
4. The rights granted herein shall be effective only when
exercised within a period of one year from the effective date
of approval. Upon the written request of the applicant, the
Director of Planning may extend this period up to an
additional six months.
5. The applicant shall comply with all legal requirements
regarding provisions for the disabled, including those set
forth in the California Administrative Code, Title 24/ Part
2.
6. Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be subject
to the review ad approval of the parking and Traffic
Englneer.
7. Project design shall comply with the building energy
regulations set forth in the California Administrative Code,
Title 24/ Part 2, (Energy conservation Standards for New
Residential Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of
a Building Permit.
8. Natural light shall be provided in at least one bathroom in
each dwelling unit.
9. street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as
required in a manner consistent with the city's Tree Code
(Ord. 1242 CCS), per the specifications of the Department of
Recreation and Parks and the Department of General Services.
No street tree shall be removed without the approval of the
Department of Recreation and Parks.
lO. Street and/or alley lighting shall be provided on public
rights-of-way adj acent to the proj ect if and as needed per
the specifications and with the approval of the Department of
General Services.
- 4 -
11. Any outdoor lighting shall be shielded and/or directed away
from adjacent residential properties, with any such lighting
not to exceed 0.5 foot candles of illumination beyond the
perimeter of the subject property.
12. This determination shall not become effective for a period of
ten days (twenty days for Development Review Permits and
Conditional Use Permits) from the date of determination or,
if appealed, until a final determination is made on the
appeal.
13. No noise generating equipment shall be placed adj acent to
neighboring residential buildings.
INCLUSIONARY UNIT CONDITIONS
1. The developer shall covenant and agree with the City of Santa
Monica to the specific terms, conditions and restrictions
upon the possession, use and enjoyment of the subject
property, which terms, conditions and restrictions shall be
recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office as a
part of the deed of the property to ensure that two
affordable units are provided and maintained over time and
through subsequent sales of the property. An affordable unit
shall be defined as being affordable to households with
incomes not exceeding 100% of the (HUD) Los Angeles County
median income, expending not over 25% of monthly income on
housing costs, as specified by the Housing Division of the
Department of community and Economic Development.
This agreement shall be executed and recorded prior to
approval of the Final Map. Such agreement shall specify 1)
resoonsibilities of the developer for making the unites)
available to eligible tenants and 2) responsibilities 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.
This provision is intended to satisfy the inclusionary
housing requirements of Program 12 of the Housing Element of
the General Plan of the city of Santa Monica ("Program 12").
Developer may satisfy the obligations created by this
~greement by demonstrating to the Director of Planning
compliance with any ordinance or resolution adopted by the
city within two years from the effective date of this
approval, which is intended to provide an alternative method
for compliance with Program 12. An alternative method may
be, but is not limited to, the payment of a fee in-lieu of
providing an Affordable Unit.
- 5 -