SR-071090-12A
/
.
.
CjED:PB:DKW:DM
PCjCCCUP905
Council Mtg: July 10, 1990
'10 ~ {J rr:r:r
Id-A
JUl1 0 ;990
Santa Monica, Californ1a
TO:
Mayor and City council
FROM:
city staff
SUBJECT
Appeal of a Planning Commission Condition of Approval
and an Appeal of a Planning commission Approval of
Conditional Use Permit 90-005 to Allow a Five Unit
Condominium at 1405 Ocean Park Boulevard.
Applicant: Selivestr Savarovsky
Appellant: Selivestr Savarovsky
Appellant: 2525 14th street Homeowners Association
INTRODUCTION
On April 18, 1990, the Planning commission approved CUP 90-005 to
allow a five unit condominium at 1405 Ocean Park Boulevard by a
vote of 5-0 with one absence and one abstention. The applicant
has filed an appeal regarding one condition of the approval, and
a group of neighbors has filed an appeal of the project approval.
The appeal forms are provided as Attachments A and B.
This
report recommends that the City Council approve the appeal of the
condition of approval and deny the appeal of the project
approval. The two appeals were filed after the ten day appeal
period for the Tentative Tract Map which ended April 28, 1990.
Therefore, the appeals are for the Conditional Use Permit only,
the Tract Map is approved.
This item was originally scheduled for the City Council meeting
of June 12, 1990. Due to the fact that the original 500' radius
notification labels were incomplete, the item was continued and
new labels were prepared.
- 1 -
/~-A
JUt 1 0 1990
.
.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing the construction of a five unit,
three-story condominium building with a thirteen space
subterranean parking garage accessed from Ocean Park Boulevard.
There is no rear alley. An existing three unit residential
building would be demolished. The new building would feature
three, two-story units on the first and second floors and two,
one-story plus loft, units on the third floor.
ANALYSIS
Applicant's Appeal
At the Planning commission meeting of April 18, 1990, the
Commission approved the proposed condominium with the conditions
contained in the attached statement of Official Action. In
addition to the standard conditions of approval, the Commission
imposed a condition that there be a 4 ft. unexcavated side yard,
with box trees, along the west side of the property. The
applicant is appealing the added condition of approval.
section 9040.17 (SMMC) states that in the R3 District, on parcels
having a width of 50 feet or greater, there shall be provided and
maintained an unexcavated area equal to 4 feet in width along the
entire length of at least one of the side property lines.
However, the SUbject parcel is only 46 feet in width, and
therefore the Zoning Code exempts the property from the
unexcavated side yard requirement. The Commission imposed the
condi tion of approval in an attempt to provide space for the
- 2 -
.
.
planting of trees which would help to lessen the impact on the
adjacent residents. The applicant contends that providing the
unexcavated side yard would eliminate two of the thirteen parking
spaces and would therefore require that the three, three bedroom
uni ts be reduced to two bedroom units. Five two bedroom units
would require 10 parking spaces plus one guest space for a total
of 11 spaces.
The applicant has reviewed the project in terms of the Planning
Commission's action of approval and has concluded that it would
be difficult to redesign the project with the condition. The
applicant has chosen to appeal the Planning Commission decision
rather than to redesign. As a way of aChieving the Commission's
obj ective of providing tress along the west elevation, but not
requiring the full unexcavated side yard on a 46' wide lot, staff
suggests that the applicant be required to provide a minimum of 5
tree wells adjacent to the west property line, subject to the
review of the Architectural Review Board.
Neighbors' Appeal
Following the April 18, 1990 Planning Commission approval of the
proposed project, a group of neighbors ("2525 14th street
Homeowners Association") appealed the commission's action. The
group's appeal is based on an overall concern about the
compatibility of the proposed structure with the existing
neighborhood. The neighbors' letter (see attachment B) states
that the project provides no setbacks of upper stories or other
design elements to relieve the massing effect of the building or
- 3 -
.
.
to allow light and ventilation to pass to the adjacent
structures. The neighbors are requesting that the Council either
overturn the Planning Commission approval, require that the
building height be reduced from three stories to two stories, or
at least maintain the Planning Commission's condition of approval
related to the 4' unexcavated side yard.
The Planning Commission approved the project with several
conditions, including the following conditions directed to the
Architectural Review Board:
Plans for final design, landscaping, screening and trash
enclosures shall be SUbject to review and approval by the
Architectural Review Board.
The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay
particular attention to the project's pedestrian
orientation and amenities; scale and articulation of
design elements; exterior colors, textures and materials;
window treatment; glazing; and landscaping.
The neighbors' concerns are based on the project scale, design
and articulation. The project is located in a R3 District and is
therefore permitted to be 3 stories and 40' in height with 50%
lot coverage. The Commission's approval was based on the fact
that the project complies with all applicable standards for the
R3 District. In terms of the building design, the Commission
approved the project with specific conditions to the
Architectural Review Board regarding their review and approval of
the project. Staff recommends that the applicant meet with the
- 4 -
.
.
neighbors prior to the ARB meeting, in an attempt to resolve the
design issues raised in the appeal.
CONCLUSION
The Planning commission's condition of approval is an attempt to
mitigate the impact of the project on the adjacent property
owners. Staff feels that the objective of providing trees along
the west side property line can be achieved by requiring tree
wells rather than a full 4' unexcavated side yard. Therefore,
staff suggests the following condition in place of Planning
Commission condition #36:
The applicant shall provide a minimum of five tree wells,
along the west side property line large enough to
accommodate 24" Box trees, subject to the approval of the
Architectural Review Board.
The neighbors' appeal is related to the scale and design of the
building. The proposed building size is permitted by the Zoning
Ordinance and the building design is subject to the Architectural
Review Board approval. In order to ensure that the neighbors I
concerns are considered in the final building design, staff is
recommending the following condition:
Prior to the Architectural Review Board hearing, the
applicant shall meet with the surrounding property owners
and residents to discuss the proposed building design and
landscape plan and to consider design changes to provide a
mutually acceptable transition between the two properties.
- 5 -
.
.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Council approve the
appl icant ' s appeal, deny the neighbor I s appeal and otherwise
uphold the planning commission approval of Conditional Use Permit
90-005 with the findings and conditions contained in the April
18, 1990 Planning Commission statement of Official Action, the
revision of Condition #36 and the added condition related to the
ARB review as stated above.
Prepared by: David Martin, Associate Planner
Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
Planning Division
community and Economic Development Department
Attachments: A. Appeal form dated 4/30/90
B. Appeal form dated 5/02/90
C. Planning Commission statement of Official
Action dated 4/18/90
D. planning Commission staff Report dated 4/18/90
E. Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations
DM
PC/CCCUP905
07/02/90
- 6 -
.
.
-l LJJ7 t:;;. /09c)
TIt~ L(Y: 1. d (J\4t) lCil)
,,/
CIty of
Santa Monica
Communllyand EconomiC Development Department
Planmng and Zoning DivISion
(213) 458.8341
APPEAL FORM
FEE. $100.00
Date Filed
ReceIVed by
Receipt No
1-1/SC I ~(,~,
c) L':.- ~ - .
E.. J"'):') ~)LI ~
.
Name Sellvestr Savarovsky
A~~~ 100 Washington Street, Marlna del Hey, cal1Iornia ~O~~~
Contact Person Er lC Heller, Me ller & Snyder Phone (213) 458 -18 31
1424 LJ..nco1n Boulevard, Ste 300, Santa I1onica, CA 90401
Pleasedescnbe the project and deciSIOn to be appealed The Drolect is the constructlon of a three (3)
story, forty (40) foot hlgh, f1ve (5) unlt condomlnlum bUl1dlng on a sub-
standard lot havlng a wldth of forty-six (46) feet. Parklnq would be
prov1ded In a thlrteen (13) space subterranean parklng garage accessed from
Ocean Park Boulevard. The proJect was approved by the Planning CO~~lssion or
condJ..tlon that a four (4) foot unexcavated area be ffia1nta1ned along the west-
er~ property 11ne. ~ne applicant appeals the tour (4' toot unexcavated area
~~N~ffi~{ment. CUP 90-005, VTTM 49015
Md~ss 1405 Ocean Park Boulevard, Santa Monlca, CA
Apphcant SelJ.. vestr Savarovsky
Ongmal hearing dale A p r 11 1 8 r 1 9 9 0
Onglnal action P lannlna ComrrUSSlon hearlna on Condl tlonal Use Perrri t
Please state the specific reason(s) for the appeal
PLEASE SEE ATTACHf1ENT
.
......
,
,
~ If ackhhonal space IS needed, use back ollorm
s~~~~ L Date Aprll 30, 1990
ERIC MELLER for Meller & Snyder
for Appllcant Se11vestr Savarovsky
~c t\-A.{sJ-r A-
.
.
ATTACHMENT
Please state the specific reason(s) for the appeal.
.
The applicant appeals the decision of the Planning commission
in granting a Conditional Use Permit only with respect to the
requirement mandated by the Commission that there be maintained an
unexcavated four (4) foot area along the entire western property
line of the project.
The subject is a substandard, forty-six (46) foot wide parcel,
zoned R3. The Staff Report concluded that liThe proposed
condominium complies with all applicable provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance and the General Plan and therefore merits approval", and
recommended approval subject to certa~n conditions. Applicant was
found to be in compliance with the General Plan and the three (3)
story, forty (40) foot height restriction of Section 9013.6 of the
City of Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance.
In that the parcel is less than fifty (50) feet wide and the
proposed development being at least three (3) stories, there
existed no requirement of a four (4) foot unexcavated side yard per
Section 9040.17 of the Santa Monica zoning Ordinance. The section
provides speclf~cal1y for this exception at page 124,
.
"On any lot in an OP-District that has a width
of less than 50 feet, and which is developed
w1th at least 3 units, no side yard setback
for subterranean or semi-subterranean parking
structures or basements is required. However
at least fifty percent of the excavated area
shall be landscaped with appropriate ground
cover and plant materials in containers."
The purpose of eliminating the requirement is an obvious
recognition on the part of the Plann1ng Department that opt1mum
development of a substandard lot cannot be accomplished where
sub't.erranean parking is reduced by requiring unexcavated s~de
yards.
In requiring a four (4) foot unexcavated side yard, the
orig~nally planned thirteen (13) parking spaces must be reduced to
eleven (11) spaces. As a result, the original development plans
of two (2) three bedroom units, two (2) two bedroom units and loft
and one (1) two bedroom unit must be modified so as to eliminate
the three bedroom units, replacing them with two bedroom units.
Aside from the negative economic impact on the project, what was
originally planned as a well balanced "family" oriented project,
will no longer have the physical attributes to attract purchasers
with children.
It is Appellant's position that to require a four (4) foot
.
.
. .
community and Economic Development Department
Planning and Zoning Division
Appea 1 Form
Applicant Selivestr Savarovksy
April 3D, 1990
Page 2
unexcavated side yard in a substandard lot is in contradiction of
the unambiguous language of Section 9040.17 and was made a
requirement to "punish" Applicant and to downscale a project which
on its face could not be downscaled because it was consistent with
the Santa Monica Municipal Code and the General Plan.
The "punishment" made reference to stems from a letter
directed to the Planning Commission by Mr. Bruce Favish, an
attorney, who resides in a two (2) story condominium complex,
adjacent to the west boundary of the proposed project. The letter
requests that the "arboreal splendor" on the project site be
preserved 50 that Mr. Favish could maintain his serene view. The
letter states, in part,
"As I sit typing this letter, my view is
through large sliding glass doors in my living
room, to a serene scene of afternoon light
filtering through swinging branches of a grand
aged rubber tree. The tree must be many
decades old. A short distance south of the
rubber tree are two other splendid trees."
On March 14, 1990, the Director of General Services, city of
Santa Monica, directed a letter to Mr. Savarovsky, ordering him to
"trim the tree which is encroaching into the sidewalk back to the
property line. Remove and dispose of dry leaves, trash, and other
debris surrounding the building. Maintain on a regular basis.".
Mr. Savarovsky understood this order to include not only the trees
adjacent to sidewalk but the trees well within the property lines.
In complying with the order, the trees were trimmed and the leaves
were swept from the entire parcel. Within days these large trees
had again deposited an inordinate amount of leaves on the property.
Recognizing that the trees would have to eventually be removed to
accommodate the subterranean park1ng requirements of the project,
Mr. Savarovsky removed the trees on the property, none of which
were adjacent to the sidewalk. His actions were absolutely lawful
and not in violation of any state or local law or ordinance.
Mr. Savarovsky's only mistake was one in judgment, not taking
into consideration his actions as they related to the contents and
proximi ty of Mr. Fav ish I s letter. Al though Mr. Savarovsky
adamantly denied having taken the letter into consideration or even
having received and read the letter prior to his actions, the
Planning Commission looked disfavorably upon Mr. Savarovsky.s
conduct in light of Mr. Favish I s letter and as "punishment",
w~thout the support of any provision of the Municipal Code, placed
. .
Community and Economic Development Department
Planning and Zoning Division
Appeal Form
Applicant Selivestr savarovksy
April 30, 1990
Page 3
upon Mr. Savarovsky a burden which will alter the entire concept
of the project.
.
In what we believe to be an abuse of discretion on the part
of the Planning commission, in creating requirements in clear
violation of its own regulatory provisions, the Planning Commission
has established a bad precedent, a precedent which leaves the
developer in the unenvious position of not knowing, when purchasing
a parcel, whether he can rely on the legal and equitable
proposition that the Planning commission will follow and carry out
the clear intent of its own zoning provisions.
.
We believe the Planning commission, without punishing the
Applicant, could have, within its discretion, imposed requirements
upon Mr. Savarovsky which would not require the concept
modification of the project, but at the same time alleviate the
concerns of the owners in the adjacent condominium project. As an
example, the Planning commission could have required that an
aesthetically pleasing fence be erected along the property line
and that large planters, containing mature trees, be placed at
close intervals along the fence line. In this fashion there would
be adherence to the clear dictates of the Santa Monica Zoning
Ordinance and the alleviation of a neighbor's concern. We
recognize that these concerns cannot be fully satisfied but one
cannot expect in a high density thoroughfare, such as Ocean Park
Boulevard, the absolute serenity to which Mr. Favish has become
accustomed.
Applicant respectfully requests that the City council direct
the Planning Commission to adhere to the provisions of the Santa
Monica Ordinance, Section 9040.17, and d~rect them to approve the
proJect wlthout the requirement that there be a four (4) foot
un excavated side yard.
Respectfully submitted,
MELLER & SNYDER
A Professional Law corporation
~-
ERIC MELLER ~
In behalf of Applicant Selivestr
Savarovsky
.
.
~
.~lcc~ r\~( I Cftfo.. (01\1
:~&.cr CD t r1 c~! r- Hz1
( ) ,
. ./
CItV of
Santa Monica
Commumty and EconomiC Development Department
Planning and ZonIng DIYlslon
(213) 458.8341
APPEAL FORM
--,' ,-': C" -. ~'i4t'lIl"'L!
.
4- .;'-
Date Filed '),:; - t.1 C
ReceIved by ~ ( L ~
Receipt No \ C, ~ J & 'I
~\lX. ~..-";:..r l::. kE:><:'b C Ia...+1 ~
- C'~ ~ Hh:.., \,'~. / A q C4C ~
- Phone - I r, I ? ') ~ z- " ;' 2- ?~..,
140 <" O(tavvl ~ t t?/') u tt. \JC1...vd
Crt) p qD ~ov'5'
~... rto'-'- ~ vi'
FEE. $100.00
Name :.). ~ ~ S- I ~ f-1.,. "S~"'- t
Address ;"'2< I '"' ~ L; t: -ti (.,
Contacl Person' - 3... lA L -e t; v I c-,h
Please descnbe the project and deciSIOn 10 be appealed
=~ber ~f c~Ofi l<-~/~lt,.;.!. 4qc / .,..-
Applicant , i} i~tf\ r I .d I '~l a'" w..;oY" a v' ~ F--7
Onglnal heanng date t3 . ,,- \- l
OngmalacllOn Arrro-Ja.I \dt~ ............,t?l. h ~"\<:
Please stale the specific reason(s) ~r the appeal <- ~ Ct. +-~c t\.C c ~ ~ i? !.\M""""'d.L t J \ ~\A .
<<;...' , "" .. -.
.
SJgnature
r:'/ ....."..-.. II EfIJ11Otl8l ~ IS needed. use bIICk of form
~L !/~ Dae
~ \ t-L~~",>1 ~\.}
M'~1 r?--. 14 qo
I '
A 1T1-\C tI r-/l r- ~ -, . b
.
.
.
.e
~e-u~ ~-D
---
1405 OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD: MEMORANDUM RE
APPEAL/REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Proposed development site: 1405 Ocean Park Boulevard/CUP 90-005
Planning Commission hearing date: April 18, 1990
Petitioning party: 2525 14th street Homeowners Association
I. RELIEF SOUGHT
This action is brought of behalf of the 2525 14th Street
Homeowners Association (hereafter "Homeowners"), an association
representing seven condominium owners located on property
immediately west of 1405 Ocean Park Boulevard (hereafter
"Property,,).l Pursuant to City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land
Use and Zoning Ordinance (hereafter "Ordinancell) i 9114.7, the
Homeowners seek revocation of a conditional use permit granted by
the Planning Commission on April 18, 1990 to Sylvestr Savarovsky
("Mr. Savarovsky"), developer of a proposed 5-unit condominium
project on the Property. Alternatively, pursuant to ordinance
~~ 9114.8, and 9132.1 through 9132.4, the Homeowners appeal the
Planning Commission's approval of the conditional use permit. It
is important to state that the Homeowners are in no way opposed to
construction of condominiums on the Property. It is the nature of
the project proposed and conduct of the developer which necessitate
this action. As citizens of Santa Monica, the Homeowners entreat
IThe homeowners at 2525 14th Street are: Avram and Nina
Dorfman (#1)7 Jonathan Udell (#2) 7 Rosemary Leach (#3)7 Joe and Joy
Williams {#4)7 Dorothy Smith (#5); Bruce Favish (#6) 7 and
Arthur 5011 (#7). Four of the seven homeowners submitted separate
letters to the Planning commission prior to the April 18 hearing,
strongly objecting to the size and scale of the project and
advocating preservation of mature trees along the side property
line. Nina Dorfman, whose husband Avram has known Mr. Savarovsky
for about 20 years from the time they both lived in Leningrad,
spoke in favor of the project at the Planning commission hearing.
Neither she nor Mr. Savarovsky disclosed at that hearing that the
Dorfmans have actively discussed with Mr. savarovsky his
co-venturing a condominium development with them on the 1400 block
of Maple Street. The Dorfmans do not endorse this appeal.
1
.
.
.
.
their elected and appointed officials to prevent needless
impairment of their lives and homes which Mr. Savarovsky's project,
as proposed, will cause.
II. BACKGROUND
A. The Property.
Mr. Savarovsky purchased the Property on or about July 13,
1987, for $215,000. Presently, the Property contains a one-story,
four unit apartment building constructed in 1952, located on a
substandard lot which is 46 ft. wide x 140 ft. deep (6440 total sq.
ft.). Until recently the Property contained a number of mature
trees, including two large trees near the west property line, which
created a complete privacy screen for owners in our building. The
Property contains a large setback on the west side providing a
significant separation between the Property's existing structure
and our building.
B. Zoninq and Surroundinq Uses.
The property is zoned R3. Except for one island of C2 zoning,
Ocean Park Boulevard is zoned R3 on both sides from just east of
Lincoln Boulevard to 25th Street where the Santa Monica Business
Park begins. Surrounding uses consist of two-story multi-family
residential on the adjacent lot to the east (R3), one-story multi-
family across Ocean Park Boulevard to the south (R3), two-story
mUlti-family residential on the adjacent lot to the west (R3) and
two-story, mUlti-family residential on the adjacent lot to the
north (R2).2 Other residential structures within a quarter mile
2The Planning Division's staff report incorrectly indicates
that the property on the adjacent lot to the west (our building)
is a three-story structure. It is a two-story, flat-roofed
structure. The report also indicates that the lot to the north is
zoned R3. It is zoned R2. These discrepancies are indicated in
the event they may contribute to any misunderstanding of the
existing character and state of the residential neighborhood.
2
.
.
.
.
radius are either one or two stories, with larger than required
setbacks. Along Ocean Park from Lincoln to 25th Street there are
dozens of mUlti-family residential structures. Of all those
structures, only 3 are built to heights exceeding 30 feet. Thus,
though Ocean Park Boulevard is zoned R3 , it is almost entirely
built to R2 specifications. Even a new condominium project
proposed for 1818 Ocean Fark Boulevard conforms to R2 standards.
The fact that this area, while technically zoned R3, is built out
almost exclusively with one or two story construction and ample
setbacks, justifies and compels a finding that the existing
character and state of our neighborhood is lower height, lower
density, and smaller scale than R3 allows.
c. The Proposed Development.
Mr. Savarovsky removed tenants from the Froperty under the
Ellis Act and on or about January 5, 1990 filed a Development
Review/conditional Use Permit Application with the city Planning
Division. The proposed development is a 3-story structure, plus
loft, plus rooftop terrace with planters. The building will be 40
ft. in height above an average natural grade of 100.37. Without
taking into account the added height of rooftop plantings, the
building will tower over the adjacent 2-story multi-residential
structures by 18 to 20 feet, or the equivalent of two stories. The
project provide.s no setbacks of upper stories or other design
elements to relieve the massing effect of the building, to provide
a height transition from the adjacent two-story structures, or to
allow light and ventilation to pass to the adjacent structures.
The are no balcony setbacks, sloped roofs, staggered windows, or
other design elements to minimize privacy invasion to adj acent
residents. Windows and balconies of the proposed building will
look into and down on the bedrooms of most units in our building.
Balconies on the west side of the proposed building will be about
12 feet from our building.
3
.
.
.
.
The sole concession to landscaping in the original design was
a 2 ft. planting strip on the west property line, extending into
a small planting area on the rear property line, and two rooftop
planters. The design provides no specifications for the nature or
size of plantings proposed. At the Planning Commission hearing,
Richard Manion speaking on behalf of the applicant, testified that
the developer would accommodate patio plants in gallon containers
and that the rooftop planters would provide privacy for adjacent
residents and Ita more verdant effect". The plans submitted do not
show or describe the gallon plantings or the rooftop plantings.
Further, Mr. Manion's comments did not address the substantial
privacy invasion to be suffered by adjacent owners due to proximity
and height of the project.
The Planning Commission ordered as a condition of the
conditional use permit that the 2 ft. planting strip on the west
property line be increased to 4 ft., thereby permitting planting
of large replacement trees comparable to the two trees removed by
Mr. Savarovsky. (See section III.B. below.) Mr. savarovsky has
appealed this condition and seeks to have the planting strip
restored to 2 ft. As discussed below, retention of this 4 ft.
planting strip is imperative if any adequate screening trees are
to be planted.
III. MR. SAVAROVSKY'S MISCONDUCT JUSTIFIES PERMIT REVOCATION
Mr. Savarovsky's conduct has been characterized by arrogant
disregard for the rights of neighbors to be informed and have the
opportunity to participate in the development approval process, and
for disregard of City agencies charged with overseeing development
proposals.
A. failure to Notifv Neiahbors.
The first page of the City's Development Review/conditional
Use Permit Application strongly encourages developers to contact
neighbors before submitting a permit application, and requests
4
.
.
.
.
information regarding the developer's contact with immediate
neighbors and applicable neighborhood groups, including specific
names and dates of contact. Mr. Savarovsky's application contains
no names or dates, but states the following: "Applicant in the
process of contacting project neighbors. To date Homeowners
Association President of adjoining 7 unit condominium has been
contacted. Names of other persons contacted shall be submitted
within :2 weeks ':)f the filing date."
At the Planning Commission hearing, Joe Williams, President
of our Homeowners Association, testified that he had never had any
substantive discussions with Mr. Savarovsky regarding the proposed
development and was never informed of any particular design
features. The "contact" referred to by Mr. savarovsky was in the
nature of casual small talk on the street. (See Appendix of
hearing excerpts.) Mr. Williams emphatically stated he never gave
explicit or tacit approval to any project and first learned of the
nature of the proposed development when he received notice on or
about April 6, 1990 of the Planning commission hearing. with the
possible exception of Avram and Nina Dorfman, who are or hope to
be co-venturers with Mr. Savarovsky on other real estate projects,
no one in our condominium had any notice of the proposed
development until about April 6, 1990 when notices of the Planning
Commission hearing were received from the City Planning Office.
Further, Mr. Savarovsky never submitted the names of additional
persons contacted as he represented he would do. Al though a
developer may have no legal obligation to contact neighbors, once
he voluntarily inserts a condition on his conditional use permit
application, certified with his signature, he should be bound to
comply with that condition before receiving permit approval. The
failure to contact neighbors should not be viewed as a de minimus
procedural infraction, but a serious one tantamount to denying
neighbors a right of due process. Santa Monica has sought to
promote neighborhood participation in the development process
through notice requirements / public hearings, and neighborhood
5
.
.
.
.
groups. This objective is undermined when a developer is permitted
to avoid and misrepresent neighborhood contact. Failure to submit
names of neighbors contacted violates the self-imposed terms of Mr.
Savarovsky I s application and impairs the neighbors I rights to
participate meaningfully in the development process.
B. Submission of Inaccurate Certified List of Property
Owners and Tenants.
By letter dated January IS, 1990, David Martin of the city
Planning Division advised Mr. savarovsky that his application for
a Conditional Use Permit was incomplete because it did not contain
notification materials as specified on the "Requirements for Radius
Map and Certified List of Property Owners and Tenants. II
Subsequently Mr. Savarcvsky submitted these materials. While the
Homeowners have not scrutinized the entire list for accuracy, there
is one glaring omission which was probably not accidental. The
property adjacent to 1405 Ocean Park on the east side is 1413 Ocean
Park. It is a 5 unit townhouse building all of which units are
rented to tenants. Per the "Requirements for Radius Map and
Certified List of Property Owners and Tenants", Mr. Savarovsky was
required to ascertain the names of the individual tenants for
inclusion on the mailing list. The only mailing for 1413 Ocean
Park was sent to Hous Development, P.O. Box 745, Santa Monica, CA -
with no zip code! In recent conversations with residents of 1413,
all of whom are profoundly affected by Mr. Savarovsky's project,
they advised that they were never contacted by Mr. Savarovsky and
received .DQ written notice of the April 18 Planning Commission
hearing. Consequently, these neighbors did not have an opportunity
to submit written opposition to the project and only learned of the
Planning Commission hearing shortly before it occurred.
It appears more than coincidence that a building full of
tenants with strong feelings about Mr. Savarovsky's project were
completely omitted from the certified List of property Owners and
Tenants. The notice which was sent to Hous Development, presumably
6
.
.
.
.
the record owner, was addressed to a post office box with no zip
code and may well never have been delivered.
Mr. Savarovsky's submission of an inaccurate list, omitting
key neighbors, not only evidences callous disregard for
neighborhood interests and disrespect for the development approval
process, but violates City Planning requirements and perpetrates
a fraud on the City Planning Office, the Planning Commission, and
the neighbors.3
C. Destruction of Trees.
Mr. Savarovsky's most outrageous act pertains to his
destruction of trees. Two very large trees once stood near the
west property line of the Property providing privacy, shade, noise
insulation, wildlife habitat, and natural enhancement for all the
residents of our building as well as for 1413 Ocean Park. In a
letter sent to the planning commission and copied to
Mr. Savarovsky, Bruce Favish of our building urged the Commission
to give consideration to these trees and attempt to preserve them,
or at minimum order their preservation pendinq final demolition
3Despite the admonitions of Commission members (see Appendix)
that Mr. Savarovsky cooperate more with neighbors, he has refused
to meet with neighbors and neighborhood association
representatives, despite repeated requests through his counsel for
such a meeting. Specifically, on Thursday, April 26, Mr. Favish
telephoned Eric Meller, counsel for Mr. Savarovsky, and asked if
Mr. Meller, Mr. Savarovsky, and perhaps his architect, would attend
a meeting on Sunday evening, April 29, with neighbors and
neighborhood association representatives. Mr. Favish asked
Mr. Meller to confirm by sometime Friday whether he and his client
would attend the meeting. Mr. Meller never even extended the
courtesy of communicating whether he and his client would attend.
Mr. Favish had all the other meeting participants "on hold" and had
to contact them and let them know the meeting was cancelled.
Mr. Savarovsky has neve:r agreed to meet with neighbors and
neighborhood association representatives. He filed an appeal of
the Planning commission action without any attempt to resolve
issues with neighbors.
7
.
.
.
.
approval and require replacement of comparahle trees.4 Mr. Favish
spoke with a City Planner on April 6 specifically to ascertain
whether the developer could remove trees without a permit and was
advised that the trees could not be removed until a demolition
permit was obtained, which could take 6 to 9 months. Mr. Favish
relied on this information is forebearing from seeking an
injunction on behalf of the Homeowners to preserve the trees at
least until final demolition approval was obtained.
On or about April 11, just two days after receiving a copy of
Mr. Favish' s letter, and one week in advance of the Planning
commision hearing, Mr. Savarovsky cut down the trees. Mr. Favish
was out of town and returned two days before the Planning
4Mr. Favish's letter states inter alia:
. . . Mr. Savarovsky's development, if approved, will have no
less effect than to destroy my enjoyment of my home. . . . The
idyllic scene I have tried to describe is why I bought my
condominium: there is a powerful sense of privacy, ample
light, air and unexpected natural beauty in the midst of urban
crowding.
Dorothy Smith of our building submitted a letter to the
Planning Commission stating, inter a~la:
I have lived here for almost 18 years now, and initially
when I surveyed the apartment, the most striking feature
was the "stand of trees" which the apartments overlook
from both the 1 i v ing rooms and bedrooms. These trees are
immediately adjacent to our property line and everyone
here feels they belong to us, as well as to the property
next door. In fact they are so close, that I can reach
out and touch one of them from my 2nd floor patio. They
are a unique part of our landscape, and if they were cut
down and carted away, most of the enjoyable ambiance of
this property would evaporate.
Tenants in unit 7, Leo and Bea Graf, have been residents for
many years. The are in their seventies and have remained as
tenants due to their senior citizen status under TORCA. Mrs. Graf
suffers eye disease and has had two ocular implants. She is
extremely light sensitive and since Mr. Savarovsky's destruction
of the trees has been unable to tolerate the harsh light in her
bedroom. She has arranged to have protective film placed on her
windows to alleviate her discomfort.
8
.
.
.
.
Commission hearing to discover their destruction.
The unnecessary and brutally insensitive destruction of the
trees, before Mr. Savarovsky had even sought Planning Commission
approval and before receiving a demolition permit, has caused
considerable emotional distress to residents of our building,
physical discomfort, increase in interior temperatures due to loss
of shade, increase in street noise due to loss of sound insulation,
loss of enjoyment of our homes, and loss of market value.
It is obvious that Mr. Savarovsky's action was taken in direct
response to the Homeowners' expression of concern about the trees:
he cut them down before the Planning Commission had an opportunity
to exercise jurisdiction over the tree issue, thereby removing a
possible impediment to his project. At the Commission hearing,
Mr. Savarovsky had the aUdacity to say that he was directed to
remove the trees by the General Services that he intended to remove
the trees anyway and the removal had nothing to do with
Mr. Favish's letter or the upcoming Planning Commission hearing.
He was rebuked by the Commission for making patent
misrepresentations regarding these matters. (See Appendix of
hearing excerpts.)
Some ~ay accept Mr. Savarovsky's action, making the argument
that he had the right to remove trees on his property, and in any
case the trees would have had to have been removed for the project.
This position ignores critical issues and is akin to condoning a
lynching on the theory that the person would have been found guilty
anyway. Mr. Savarovsky was on notice from Mr. Favish' s letter that
the trees were an issue of extreme concern over which the neighbors
wished to have the Planning commission exercise jurisdiction.
Mr. Savarovky knew the trees were an important neighborhood issue
which the neighbors wished to raise before the Planning Commission.
By unilaterally destroying the trees, Mr. Savarovsky deprived the
neighbors of a right akin to due process to have the trees
addressed by the commission, and denied the Commission the
opportunity to address the trees issue (at minimum, the Commission
9
.
.
.
.
could have ordered preservation of the trees until a demolition
permit was obtained). It may take Mr. Savarovsky months or years
to begin construction. His project may never be built. However
the trees are gone forever.
Moreover, it is a dangerous precedent for developers to be
able to pre-empt neighborhood and City agency action by eradicating
issues which they believe, or worse have notice, are to be raised
with City agencies for review. Our society does not condone the
destruction of evidence because it might render one guilty. We do
not condone fraudulent conveyances or secreting of assets to avoid
a creditor. We do not condone bail-skipping. Why should we
condone Mr. Savarovsky who has shown contemptuous disregard for
concerns and rights of neighbors, and for the City's right to
address neighborhood concerns as part of the development process?
D. Misrepresentations to Planninq Commission.
In addition to submitting an inaccurate certified list of
property owners and tenants, failing to have any substantive
contact about the proj ect with any neighbors or neighborhood
associations, failure to submit a list of neighbors contacted as
represented in his application, and needlessly destroying mature
trees after being put on notice of the neighbors' desire to have
the trees addressed by the Flanning commission, Mr. Savarovskymade
various misrepresentations to the Planning Commission, including
representing that the General services instructed him to remove the
trees. These misrepresentations were specifically recognized by
the commission (see Appendix of hearing excerpts).
By submitting an inaccurate certified list of property owners
and tenants, in violation of City Planning requirements, some
neighbors were not notified of the Planning Commission hearing and
did not have opportunity to voice their obj ections. In this
regard, the Conditional Use Permit was obtained by fraud or
misrepresentation and should be revoked. By failing to submit a
list of property owners contacted, in violation of the applicant's
10
.
.
.
.
own representation that he would do so, his application must be
deemed incomplete and the approval as having been obtained by fraud
or misrepresentation. By misrepresenting the nature and extent of
communications with our Homeowners Association, Mr. Savarovsky
misled the Planning Department and the Commission. By contending
that he was directed by General Services to remove trees on the
west side of the Property, Mr. Savarovsky made misrepresentations
to the Commission. By destroying trees after being put on notice
that they were an issue to be addressed by the Planning commission,
Mr. Savarovsky violated the spirit if not the letter of santa
Monica policy encouraging consideration of neighborhood concerns
as part of the development process. He also deprived the
commission of the opportunity to act on a matter over which they
otherwise could have exercised jurisdiction. For these reasons,
the Council is urged to revoke Mr. Savarovsky's conditional use
permit pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance i 9114.7.
III. THE COt~CIL SHOULD PRESERVE THE FOUR FOOT PLANTING STRIP
To add insult to inj ury, Mr. Savarovsky has appealed the
commission decision, seeking inter alia to have overturned the
condition of a 4 foot planting strip. The Counci~ must uphold the
four foot olantina strio. Our association has met with three
- -
separate landscapers, all of whom stated that trees of reasonable
height could be planted in a four foot strip (e.g., 4811 box trees),
but that only small saplings could be planted in a two foot strip.
At minimum, the Homeowners feel that are entitled to the earliest
possible replacement of like-sized trees to restore privacy, shade
and beauty to their homes. If Mr. Savarovsky is allowed to prevail
with a two foot planting strip, the Homeowners will not only have
been deprived of their former tree coverage but will have to suffer
permanent loss of privacy, shade, wildlife, beauty and market
value. The four foot planting strip must be preserved. If it is,
then ARB will have an opportunity to address adequate landscaping.
If a two foot strip is allowed, replacement tree coverage will be
11
.
.
.
.
impossible.
IV. THE PROJECT HEIGHT SHOULD BE REDUCED
A. Jurisdiction to Order Heiaht Reduction.
Issues were raised at the Planning Commission hearing as to
whether the Commission had authority to order a height less than
allowed by applicable zoning. Concerns were voiced to the effect
that the Commission cannot rewrite the zoning ordinance, engage in
"spot-zoning", etc. The Homeowners are not asking for any such
thing. They are merely asking to have the Ordinance applied.
Ordinance I 9013.1 states as a purpose of R3 zoning to
"maintain and protect the existing character and state of the
residential neighborhood. n Ordinance i 9060.3 (c) grants the
Planning commission, and City Council on appeal, the eX'Oress
authority to reduce height of condominium projects, notwithstanding
zoning:
(c) Yard and Heiqht Reauirements. All new condominium
projects shall comply with property development standards
for the district in which the condominium project is to
be located except that nothing in this section shall be
construed to prohibit the imposition of more restrictive
requirements as a condition of approval Py the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal or review, when
necessary to protect the public health, safety, or
general welfare, based on appropriate findings.
The appropriate inquiry would seem to be {lot whether the
Commission or City council has power to order a height reduction,
but rather what criteria should apply to justify height reduction
of a condominium. The Homeowners submit that the following factors
satisfy both the presriptions of 019013.1 and 9060.3(C).
As stated earl ier, while the area of Ocean Park Boulevard
under consideration is technically zoned R3, in fact it is
predominated by lower density, lower height levels and larger
12
.
.
.
.
setbacks. It is essentially built to R2 scale or less. What more
is needed to establish that the "existing character and state of
the residential neighborhoodlt is one or two story build-outs?
Further, all the immediately surrounding structures are one or two
story structures which will be dwarfed by the proposed project.
Particular features of this project add to its
objectionability. First, the lot is already substandard. Building
the lot to its maximum height limit, and tacking on rooftop
terraces, increases the impact on adjacent structures, both of
which are about 20 ft. lower than the proposed project. The lot
is simply too small to accommodate the height and mass of the
proposed project.
Second, the health, safety, and welfare of our Homeowners will
be impaired by the project in that: 1) its height will obscure any
direct sunlight and block any direct view of sky; 2) it will impair
cross-ventilation which is our primary source of cooling in hot
weather; 3) it will invade our privacy; 4) it will increase noise
levels: and 5) it will require much higher trees than are possible
to plant to provide an effective screen.
Some City officials have indicated that city "policy"
restricts them from ordering height reductions. The council is
asked to recognize a policy of protecting the health, safety and
welfare of two buildings full of its constituents who are being
asked to sacrifice light and air so Mr. Savarovsky can engage in
dense-pack development. One of the Commission's stated purposes
is to "provide adequate open spaces for light and air". Factors
exist which make this project unique and justify a downscaling of
height. The Council is urged to consider the Homeowners' policy
interest in having a breeze and being able to see some sun and sky
outside their windows, instead of just neighbors.5
5An especially frustrating aspect of this case is that it
appears the developer could provide comparable multifamily housing
and make just as much money by building a row of two-story
townhouses, with nice landscaping included. An excellent example
is provided by a project proposed for 1818 Ocean Park (the Council
13
.
.
.
.
B. Alternativelv. The proiect Heiqht Should Be Scaled Back.
At the least, the project should be scaled back to lessen its
impact on the adjacent structures. This could be achieved by a
number of design modifications, including setting back the
structure from the second floor up, having roofs sloped, balconies
recessed, etc. The focus of these modifications should be to open
up space for light and air to the adjacent buildings, to enhance
privacy, and to reduce the massing effect of the structure.
V. CONCLUSION
The Council should send a clear message to Mr. Savarovsky that
cavalier action which violates the letter and spirit of Santa
Monica development policies, which makes a sham of neighbors'
rights to participate in the development process and the City'S
efforts to promote such participation, and which needlessly or at
least prematurely destroys our City'S tree resources, will not be
tolerated. His conditional use permit should be revoked.
and City Planning Division are encouraged to review the plans for
this project). 1818 Ocean Park is an R3 property with a lot just
slightly larger than Mr. Savarovsky's (50' x 150' vs. 46' x 1401).
Notwithstanding the R3 zoning, the developer, David Aure11, has
opted to design a 2-story plus loft building, with sloped living
room, which will harmonize with the surrounding 2-story multi-
residential buildings. The design also includes numerous tree
plantings on both sideyards, with a four foot planting strip on one
side. The plan is for 6 townhouses priced at $330,000 each, for
gross sales of 1.98 million dollars, Further, Mr. Aurell's
construction costs will probably be less than Mr. Savarovsky IS
because of reduced height and less square footage.
Mr. Savarovsky's plan calls for 5 units with projected gross sales
of 1.76 million dollars.
The conditional use permit application advises developers: "To
the maximum extent possible, applicants should ascertain community
concerns and address them in designing proposed projects.
Applicants should contact project neighbors and community groups
well before submitting a development permit application,1I Had
Mr. Savarovsky contacted neighbors before preparing his design,
alternatives similar to the 1818 Ocean Park design could have been
explored, and perhaps a mutually agreeable design achieved which
would have elicited neighborhood support rather than wrath.
14
.
.
.
.
Alternatively, the Council is requested to order redesign of the
project with a reduced height while maintaining the four foot
planting strip. Finally, at minimum the Council is asked to order
redesign in a manner which will reduce the loss of light, air and
privacy resulting from the proposed height of the structure.
.- .--, ~~. j
I~-~
BrUce Fav sh, vice president
2525 14th street Homeowners Association
DATED: May 2, 1990
15
.
.
APPENDIX - TRANSCRIPTION OF PORTIONS OF PLANNING
COMMISSION HEARING HELD APRIL 18, 1990
commissioner stone (to Eric Meller, counsel for Mr.
Savarovsky): ((Maybe you (re the one, maybe you I re not the one,
to answer as to whether or not the city had made overtures to
the owner to demolish, to eliminate the trees.1I
Eric Meller: "Yes, there was a particular order that was
issued that I have a copy of, and the order was dated - it's
a notice to remove trees and/or litter - directed from
Mr. Stanley Scholl, Director of General Services , city of
Santa Monica."
Commissioner: "So the City directed that the trees be
removed?"
.
Mr. Meller: "Not that the trees be removed, but that
specifically trim the trees which is encroaching on the
sidewalk, removing, dispose of dry leaves, trash and other
debris surrounding the building. Apparently, land dispose
trees and litter I - apparently Mr. Savarovsky advises me that
the trees were creating an impossible nuisance. He had
attempted to trim the trees on several occasions. Apparently
that wasn't successful. That wasn't solving the problem of
the litter and that's the reason he took it upon himself in
total, which meant removal of what was creating the nuisance.
But this order was issued and directed to him and it's my
understanding that under no circumstances did Mr. Savarovsky
remove those trees in response to Mr. Favish's letter."
.
Mr. Savarovsky: "See I have a certified letter from General
Service maintenance division. And first I cut just branches
of the tree. I never have any letter from Mr. Favish . . .
[Commission asks to see letter from General Services).
According to what Commission ask me, General Service
department ask me to trim and after two days it's again like
nothing to be done, it's again like all branches in the units,
so it's create nuisance so I have no other choice. . .11
. . .
commissioner Mechur: uJust for the record, the letter from
General Services can only relate to the trees at the front and
had absolutely nothing to do with the removal of the trees
that have been removed.1I
16
.
.
.
commissioner Mechur: If I think what's really disheartening is
the sense of misrepresentation that I've gotten and I would
caution the applicant, if this project moves ahead, to really
think strongly about being open and honest as they go forward
with this project because I assume people will be watching it.
My feeling is that the notion that the applicant contacted the
neighbors to set up meetings is a misrepresentation. From
what I hear, that those meetings were sort of casual
encounters across a fence on the property, certainly not
[inaudible] meetings. Also, to come here and to give us a
letter saying that the General services has required the trees
to be. . . you know . . . to clean up, which means taking down
trees, is clearly false because the trees that were taken down
had nothing whatsoever to do with the trees that were
mentioned in that letter. The trees that are mentioned in the
letter had to do with an encroachment problem at the sidewalk.
He's taken down trees in the middle of the year. You know,
itls just fabrication in my understanding. If you continue
to operate in that fashion you're going to run into lots of
problems I think with the project in terms of getting your
permits and getting your final approvals down the road - even
when you're in construction. So that's a caution at this
point."
. . .
Commissioner Pyn: "Just one C01IUI1ent. I would urge the
applicant though to be a lot more outgoing toward the
neighbors and to pay attention to their concerns and to work
with them as the project, if approved, proceeds. It's kind
of high-handed to make it just a completely informal thow's
it going' kind of thing. I strongly encourage you to be much
more outgoing. [Seconded ~y another Commissioner.]
.
. . .
commissioner Nelson: "Quite frankly, when I went by the
proj ect and I observed the fact that the trees were being
removed that were shown on the general lot plan of the area,
I was really ticked. And you should recognize that you have
earned my ire. Itm going to vote for this project but I'm
certain all of the Commissioners up here guarantee you that
you will be back before this body if you do not do a good jOb
before ARB. If you look at items 7.A. and 7.B. and you see
who the Appellant is, understand you will be back and I'm
going to cut you absolutely no slack."
17
.
.
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NL~BER: Conditional Use Permit 90-005
Tentative Tract Map 49015
LOCATION: 1405 Ocean Park Boulevard
APPLICANT: Selivestr Savarovsky
REQUEST: Application for a Conditional Use Permit and a
Vesting Tentative Tract Map to allow the con-
struction of a five unit condominium project.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
.
04/18/90
Date.
xx
Approved project based on the following findings
and subject to the conditions below.
Denied.
other.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FINDINGS
1.
The proposed subdivision, together with its prov1s1on for
its design and improvements, is consistent with applicable
general and specific plans as adopted by the city of Santa
Monica in that the plan conforms to the provisions of the
zoning Ordinance and the General Plan.
.
2. The site is 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 6,440 square foot lot in the R3
District can accommodate 5 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 adequately served by existing infrastructure.
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 General Plan.
- 1 -
p.. -rtf'( {-\ M t=r,J T C-
.
.
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 and alleys.
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
character of the district in which it is to
or located, in that it would be located in
residential district.
integrity and
be established
a mUlti-family
.
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.
3.
5. The proposed use would be compatible with existing and
permissible land uses within the district and the general
area in which the proposed use is to be located, in that
the area is a mix of single-family and multi-family
residential units.
6.
There are adequate prov1s1ons for water, sanitation, and
pUblic utilities and services to ensure that the proposed
use would not be detrimental to public health and safety,
in that the proposed development is an in-fill of urban
land adequately served by existing infrastructure.
.
7. Public access to the proposed use will be adequate, in
that the site is adequately served by existing streets and
alleys.
8. The physical location or placement of the use on the site
is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the sur-
rounding neighborhood, in that all setbacks, lot coverage
and height requirements for the R2 District have been met.
9. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives,
and policies of the General Plan, in that the area is de-
fined as a Medium Density Housing clrea 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,
- 2 -
.
.
in that the proposed project complies with 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 January 2, 1990, a
copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the
City Planning Division. Project development shall be
consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified
in these conditions of approval.
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.
.
Prior to consideration of the project by the Architectural
Review Board, the applicant shall review disabled access
requirements with the Building and Safety Division and
make any necessary changes in the project design to
achieve compliance with such requirements. The Architec-
tural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular
attention to the aesthetic, landscaping, and setback im-
pacts of any ramps or other features necessitated by ac-
cessibility requirements.
5. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval
by the Director of Planning. A significant change in the
approved concept shall be subject to Planning Commission
Review. Construction shall be in conformance with the
plans submitted or as modified by the Planning Commission,
Architectural Review Board or Director of Planning.
4.
6. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash en-
closures, and signage shall be subject to review and ap-
proval by the Architectural Review Board.
- 3 -
.
.
7. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay
particular attention to the projectls pedestrian orienta-
tion and amenities; scale and articulation of design ele-
ments; exterior colors, textures and materials; window
treatment; glazing; and landscaping.
Fees
8.
.
The city is contemplating the adoption of a Transportation
Management Plan which is intended to mitigate traffic and
air quality impacts resulting from both new and existing
development. The Plan will likely include an ordinance
establishing mitigation requirements, including one-time
payment of fees on certain types of new development, and
annual fees to be paid by certain types of employers in
the City. This ordinance may require that the owner of
the proposed proj ect pay such new development fees, and
that employers within the project pay such new annual em-
ployer fees related to the City's Transportation Manage-
ment Plan.
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 the residential unit(s) on the subject lot,
per and subject to the provisions of Section 6670 et seq.
of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
10.
Demolition
.
Until such time as the demolition is undertaken, and un-
less the structure is currently in use, the existing
structure shall be maintained and secured by boarding up
all openings, erecting a security fence, and removing all
debris, bushes and planting that inhibit the easy surveil-
lance of the property to the satisfaction of the Building
and Safety Officer and the Fire Department. Any landscap-
ing material remaining shall be watered and maintained
until demolition occurs.
11. Unless otherwise approved by the Recreation and Parks De-
partment and the Planning Division, at the time of demoli-
tion, any street trees shall be protected from damage,
death, or removal per the requirements of Ordinance 1242
(CCS).
l2. 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.
13. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, applicant shall
prepare for Building Division approval a rodent and pest
control plan to ensure that demolit ion and construction
- 4 -
.
.
activities at the site do not create pest control impacts
on the project neighborhood.
14. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for this
project, the project shall comply with any ordinance adop-
ted by the City council to implement Program 10 of the
Housing Element. In the event that such an ordinance has
not been adopted prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for this development project, this condition
shall be of no further force and effect. Failure to adopt
and implementing ordinance shall not excuse a developer
from the obligation to comply with any other condition
imposed in connection with Program 10 of the Housing
Element.
15.
Construction
.
unless otherwise approved by the Department of General
services, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable
during the grading and construction phase of the project.
Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need
replacing or removal as a result of the project as deter-
mined by the Department of General services shall be re-
constructed to the satisfaction of the Department of
General Services. Approval for this work shall be ob-
tained from the Department of General Services prior to
issuance of the building permits.
17. 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.
16.
18.
.
Street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as
required in a manner consistent with the City's Tree Code
(Ord. 1242 CCS), per the specifications of the Department
of Recreation and Parks and the Department of General Ser-
vices. No street tree shall be removed without the ap-
proval of the Department of Recreation and Parks.
19. A construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by
the appl icant 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 numbers and business license numbers 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 pile-
driving operations; 6) Describe the length and number 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) Describe
- 5 -
.
.
anticipated contruction-related truck routes, number of
truck trips, hours of hauling and parking location; 9)
specify the nature and extent of any helicopter hauling;
10) State whether any construction activity beyond 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.
20. 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.
.
21.
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
22. Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures are required on all new
development and remodeling where plumbing is to be added.
(Maximum 1.6 gallon toilets and 1.0 gallon urinals and low
flow shower head.)
Miscellaneous CUP Conditions
23.
The building address shall be painted on the roof of the
building and shall measure four feet by eight feet (32
square feet).
.
2~. If any archaeological remains are uncovered during
excavation or construction, work in the affected area
shall be suspended and a recognized specialist shall be
contacted to conduct a survey of 'the affected area at
project's owner's expense. A determination shall then be
made by the Director of Planning to determine the sig-
nificance of the survey findings and appropriate actions
and requirements, if any, to address such findings.
25. 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.
26. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall
screened in accordance with SMMC Section 9040.13-9040.15.
- 6 -
.
.
Refuse areas shall be of a
need, including recycling.
in its review shall pay
screening of such areas and
size ade(~ate to meet on-site
The Architectural Review Board
particulctr attention to the
equipment.
27. 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.
28. No gas or electric meters shall be located within the re-
quired front yard setback area. The Architectural Review
Board in its review shall pay particular attention to the
location and screening of such meters.
29. Any lofts or mezzanines shall not exceed 99 square feet
unless appropriate required parking is supplied. Such
areas shall also not exceed 33.3% of the room below unless
compliance with the district's limits on number of stories
can be maintained.
.
validity of Permits
30. 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.
31. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with
any conditions of approval of this permit, no further per-
mits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy
shall be issued until such violation has been fully
remedied.
.
Within ten days of Planning Division transmittal of the
statement of Official Action, project applicant shall
sign and return a copy of the Statement of Official Action
prepared by the Planning Division, agreeing to the Condi-
tions of approval and acknowledging that failure to comply
with such conditions shall constitute grounds for poten-
tial revocation of the permit approval. By signing same,
applicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights appli-
cant may possess regarding said conditions. The signed
statement shall be returned to the Planning Division.
Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute
grounds for potential permit revocation.
33. 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.
32.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
34. The pitched roof shall be reduced prior to submission to
the Architectural Review Board.
- 7 -
.
.
35. The trash enclosure shall be approved by the Sanitation
Department prior to submission to the Architectural Review
Board.
36. A four foot unexcavated side yard shall be provided along
the west property line.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CONDITIONS
L 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. Before the City Engineer may approve the final map, a sub-
division improvement agreement for all off site improve-
ments required by the City Engineer shall be prepared and
a performance bond posted through the City Attorney's
office.
.
3.
The tentative map shall expire 24 months after approval,
except as provided in the provisions of California Govern-
ment Code Section 66452.6 and Sections 9380-9382 of the
Santa Monica Municipal Code. During this time period the
final map shall be presented to the City of Santa Monica
for approval.
4. The developer shall provide the Engineering Department of
the city of Santa Monica with one Dizal Cloth print
reproduction and microfilm of each sheet of the final map
after recordation.
5.
Prior to approval of the final map, Condominium Associa-
tion 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 non-discrimination clause as
presented in section 9392 (SMMC) and in the case of con-
dominiums, contain such provisions as are required by Sec-
tion 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 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 Hap for City Council
approval.
8. The form, contents, accompanying data, and filing of the
final parcel. map shall conform to tl'le provisions of Sec-
tions 9350 through 9357 (SMMC) and the Subdivision Map
Act.
- 8 -
.
.
9. The final map shall be recorded with the Los Angeles Coun-
ty Recorder prior to issuance of any building permit for a
condominium proj ect pursuant to Government Code section
66499.30.
10. 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 after a ten
day period from the Commission's decision on the tentative
map.
INCLUSIONARY UNIT CONDITIONS
11.
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 one affordable unit is 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 30%
of monthly income on housing costs, as specified by the
Housing Division of the Department of Community and
Economic Development.
.
.
This agreement shall be executed and recorded prior to
approval of the Final Map. Such agreement shall specify
1) responsibilities of the developer for making the
unites) available to eligible tenants and 2) responsibili-
ties of the City of Santa Monica to prepare application
forms for potential tenants, establish criteria for
qualifications, and monitor compliance with the provisions
of the agreement.
Owner shall provide the city Planning Division with a
conformed copy of the recorded agreement prior to approval
of the Final Map.
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 Agreement by demonstrating to the Director of Plan-
ning compliance with Ordinance 1448 (CCS), which provides
implementation standards for Program 12.
- 9 -
.
.
.
.
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Kaufman, Mechur, Nelson, Pyne, Rosenstein
Farivar
Lambert
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not sUbject to further appeal under
the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Or-
dinance, the time within which judicial review of this decision
must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section
1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the city pursuant to
Municipal Code Section 1400. This does not supercede Public
Resources Code section 21167, which governs the time within which
judicial review of the City I S acts or decisions in connection
with the California Environmental Quality Act must be sought.
I hereby certify that this statement of Official Action accurate-
ly reflects the final determination of the Planning Commission of
the city of Santa Monica.
signature
date
print name and title
I hereby agree to the above conditions of approval and
acknowledge that failure to comply with such condit.ions shall
constitute grounds for pot.ential revocation of the permit
approval.
Applicant's Signature
Print Name and Title
PC/STCUP905
DM
OS/29/90
- 10 -
. .
A rfACHMENr :D
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
community and Economic Development Department
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE:
April 18, 1990
70:
~he Honorable Plann~r.g ComTI~ss~c~
::RO~I: ?lanni:lg Staff
SwBJECT: Conditional Cse Per~lt 90-005
Vesting ten~at~ve Tract Map 49015
Add:.-ess:
Appll.cant:
1405 Ocean Park Boulevard
Selivescr Savarovsky
. S:'~~!ARY
Actl.on: Appl1catlo~ for a Conditlo~al ~5e ?ernl~ and a Vesting
:entat~ve Tract :~ap to allow the cor.S~:.-uctlon 0: a :ive U~lt con-
. , .
c~~~nl~~ proJect.
?eco~~e~dat~o~: ripprcval wl~h Ccnd:tlc~S
?er~l.t Strea~ll~~~g Exp:ration Jate:
Aug~s-: -J :'330
S~bd~vi5ion Ac~~cn Deadll~e: Acrll
...,. .,,.............
i, .....~':J...I
S:~E ~OC~TIC~: ~l;a D~SCR!~T:C~:
.
T~e subject property is a 6,~40 sq.ft. parcel located on t~e
~Grth sl.de of Ocean Park Boulevard between :~th and :6th streets
r.avlng a frontage of 46 feet. S~rroundl.r.g uses ccnsist of t~o-
story :""ult:.-fa:uly res1dential on the adJacent lot to t~e east
(R3), one-story, multi-fa~l.ly across Ocean ?arx 30ulevard to the
south (R3), three-s~ory, nulti-fa~l.ly res~de~t~al en t~e adJacen~
:'ot to the west (R3) and t..Jo-s~cry r :-ul tl-::3:-;.:.ly en ':~e ad) acent
:O~ to the north (R3).
:C~l~g Dlstrict: ~3
Land l'se Districts: :fed1um Denslty HousHig
?arcel rirea:
140' X 46' ~ 6,~40 square feet
?RO=EC~ ~ESC~:?TI:~l
accessed
is the C0:15tru:::t:cn of a
cUlldl.ng ;.,rl':~ a 13 space
:r::nn Ocean ?ark Boulevard.
:ive unlt, "three s'Cor~l c()n-
subterranean par:'':.l:,g gara:;e
~r.e b'.l:ld::"g "ould feature
r:r:::;::osed
CC:nl:11t.:~
.
.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision, together with its prov~s~on for
its design and improvements I is consistent with applicable
general and specific plans as adopted by the city of Santa
Monica in that the plan conforms to the provisions of the
Zoning-ordinance and the General Plan.
2. The site is 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 6,440 square foot lot in the R3
District can accommodate 5 units.
.
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 adequately served by existing infrastructure.
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 General Plan.
4.
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 and alleys.
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 Ordinancell, in that the proposed condomini-
um conforms to the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan.
2.
The proposed use would not impair the
character of the district in which it is to
or located, in that it would be located in
residential district.
integrity and
be established
a mUlti-family
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.
- 3 -
.
.
5. The proposed use would be compatible with existing and
permissible land uses within the district and the general
area in which the proposed use is to be located, in that
the area is a mix of single-family and multi-family
residential units.
6. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and
public-utilities and services to ensure that the proposed
use would not be detrimental to public health and safety,
in that the proposed development is an in-fill of urban
land adequately served by existing infrastructure.
7. Public access to the proposed use will be adequate, in
that the site is adequately served by existing streets and
alleys.
8.
The physical location or placement of the use on the site
is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the sur-
rounding neighborhood, in that all setbacks, lot coverage
and height requirements for the R2 District have been met.
.
9.
The proposed use is consistent with the goals, Objectives,
and policies of the General Plan, in that the area is de-
fined as a Medium Density Housing 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 with the provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan.
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.
11.
.
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 January 2, 1990, a
copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the
City Planning Division. Project development shall be
consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified
in these conditions of approval.
2. The Plans shall comply with all other provisions of Chap-
ter I, Article IX of the Municipal Code, (Zoning Or-
dinance) and all other pertinent ordinances and General
Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica.
- 4 -
.
.
3. Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be sub-
ject to the review and approval of the Parking and Traffic
Engineer.
4. Prior to consideration of the project by the Architectural
Review Board, the applicant shall review disabled access
requirements with the Building and Safety Division and
make any necessary changes in the project design to
achieve compliance with such requirements. The Architec-
tural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular
attention to the aesthetic, landscaping, and setback im-
pacts of any ramps or other features necessitated by ac-
cessibility requirements.
5.
.
6.
Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval
by the Director of Planning. A significant change in the
approved concept shall be subject to Planning Commission
Review. construction shall be in conformance with the
plans submitted or as modified by the Planning Commission,
Architectural Review Board or Director of Planning.
Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash en-
closures, and signage shall be subject to review and ap-
proval by the Architectural Review Board.
7. 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.
Fees
8.
.
The city is contemplating the adoption of a Transportation
Management Plan which is intended to mitigate traffic and
air quality impacts re~ulting from both new and existing
development. The Plan will likely include an ordinance
establishing mitigation requirements, including one-time
payment of fees on certain types of new development, and
annual fees to be paid by certain types of employers in
the City. This ordinance may require that the owner of
the proposed proj ect pay such new development fees, and
that employers within the project pay such new annual em-
ployer fees related to the City's Transportation Manage-
ment Plan.
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 the residential unit(s) on the subject lot,
per and subject to the provisions of section 6670 et seq.
of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
Demolition
- 5 -
.
.
10. until such time as the demolition is undertaken, and un-
less the structure is currently in use, the existing
structure shall be maintained and secured by boarding up
all openings, erecting a security fence, and removing all
debris, bushes and planting that inhibit the easy surveil-
lance of the property to the satisfaction of the Building
and Safety Officer and the Fire Department. Any landscap-
ing ma-terial remaining shall be watered and maintained
until demolition occurs.
11. Unless otherwise approved by the Recreation and Parks De-
partment and the Planning Division, at the time of demoli-
tion, any street trees shall be protected from damage,
death, or removal per the requirements of Ordinance 1242
( CCS) .
12.
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.
.
13. 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.
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for this
project, the project shall comply with any ordinance adop-
ted by the City council to im.plem.ent Prog'ram 10 of the
Housing Element. In the event that such an ordinance has
not been adopted prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for this development project, this condition
shall be of no further force and effect. Failure to adopt
and implementing ordinance shall not excuse a developer
from the obligation to comply with any other condition
imposed in connection with Program 10 of the Housing
Element.
14.
.
Construction
15. Unless otherwise approved by the Department of General
Services, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable
during the grading and construction phase of the project.
16. Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need
replacing or removal as a result of the project as deter-
mined by the Department of General Services shall be re-
constructed to the satisfaction of the Department of
General Services. Approval for this work shall be ob-
tained from the Department of General services prior to
issuance of the building permits.
- 6 -
.
.
17. 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.
18. street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as
required in a manner consistent with the city's Tree Code
(Ord. 1242 CCS), per the specifications of the Department
of Recreation and Parks and the Department of General Ser-
vices. No street tree shall be removed without the ap-
proval of the Department of Recreation and Parks.
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 numbers and business license numbers 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 pile-
driving operations: 6) Describe the length and number 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) Describe
anticipated contruction-related truck routes, number of
truck trips, hours of hauling and parking location: 9)
Specify the nature and extent of any helicopter hauling:
10) State whether any construction activity beyond 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.
20. 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.
19.
.
.
21. 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
- 7 -
.
.
22. Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures are required on all new
development and remodeling where plumbing is to be added.
(Maximum 1.6 gallon toilets and 1.0 gallon urinals and low
flow shower head.)
Miscellaneous CUP Conditions
23. The building address shall be painted on the roof of the
building and shall measure four feet by eight feet (32
square feet).
24.
25.
If any archaeological remains are uncovered during
excavation or construction, work in the affected area
shall be suspended and a recognized specialist shall be
contacted to conduct a survey of the affected area at
project's owner's expense. A determination shall then be
made by the Director of Planning to determine the sig-
nificance of the survey findings and appropriate actions
and requirements, if any, to address such findings.
.
Landscaping plans shall comply wi th Subchapter 58
(Landscaping Standards) of the zoning ordinance including
use of water-conserving landscaping materials, landscape
maintenance and other standards contained in the
Subchapter.
26. 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.
27.
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.
.
28. No gas or electric meters shall be located within the re-
quired front yard setback area. The ArChitectural Review
Board in its review shall pay particular attention to the
location and screening of such meters.
29. Any lofts or mezzanines shall not exceed 99 square feet
unless appropriate required parking is supplied. Such
areas shall also not exceed 33.3% of the room below unless
compliancQ with the district's limits on nnmher of stories
can be maintained.
Validity of Permits
30. 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.
- 8 -
.
.
31. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with
any conditions of approval of this permit, no further per-
mits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy
shall be issued until such violation has been fully
remedied.
.
32. within ten days of Planning Division transmittal of the
statement of Official Action, project applicant shall
sign and return a copy of the statement of Official Action
prepared by the Planning Division, agreeing to the Condi-
tions of approval and acknowledging that failure to comply
with such conditions shall constitute grounds for poten-
tial revocation of the permit approval. By signing same,
applicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights appli-
cant may possess regarding said conditions. The signed
Statement shall be returned to the Planning Division.
Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute
grounds for potential permit revocation.
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.
33.
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.
Before the City Engineer may approve the final map, a sub-
division improvement agreement for all off site improve-
ments required by the City Engineer shall be prepared and
a performance bond posted through the City Attorney's
office.
2 .
.
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.
4. The developer shall provide the Engineering Department of
the City of santa Monica with one Dizal Cloth print
reproduction and microfilm of each sheet of the final map
after recordation.
3.
5. Prior to approval of the final map, Condominium Associa-
tion By-Laws (if applicable) and a Declaration of CC & R's
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The
CC &I R' s shall contain a non-discrimination clause as
- 9 -
.
.
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 seg. 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.
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.
8.
9.
The final map shall be recorded with the Los Angeles Coun-
ty Recorder prior to issuance of any building permit for a
condominium proj ect pursuant to Government Code Section
66499.30.
10. 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 after a ten
day period from the Commission's decision on the tentative
map.
11.
INCLUSIONARY UNIT CONDITIONS
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 one affordable unit is 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 (HOD)
Los Angeles County median income, expending not over 30%
of monthly income on housing costs, as specified by the
Housing Division of the Department of Community and
Economic Development.
This agreement shall be executed and recorded prior to
approval of the Final Map. Such agreement shall specify
1) responsibilities of the developer for making the
unites) available to eligible tenants and 2) responsibili-
ties of the City of Santa Monica to prepare application
- 10 -
.
.
.
.
.
.
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 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 Agreement by demonstrating to the Director of Plan-
ning compliance with Ordinance 1448 (CCS), which provides
implementation standards for Program 12.
Prepared by: David Martin, Associate Planner
Attachments: A. Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
B. Radius and Location Map
c. statistical Information Sheet
D. Summery of CC & Rls
E. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 49015
F. Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations
OM
PC/CUP90005
04/10/90
- 11 -
.
.
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Land Use
Category Municipal Code Element Project
Permitted Use 1 Unit/1.250 5 Units
sq.ft.= 5 du
Height 3 Storiesj40' 3 Storiesj40'
Setbacks
Front yard 20' 20'
Sideyard 4'6" 416"
Rearyard 15' 15' .
Lot Coverage 50\ 50%:
Parking 13 spaces 13 Spaces
.
- 12 -