The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-100990-12A C/ED:PB:DKW:DM PC/CCMEMO Council Mtg: october 9, 1990 I~-A OCT 9 1990 Santa Monica, California TO: Mayor and city Council FROM: city Staff SUBJECT: Reconsideration of an Appeal of a Planning Commission condition of Approval for 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 Attached is the staff report related to the above referenced project which was considered by the City Council at the meeting of July 10, 1990. This item is being reconsidered at request of the City Council. On July 10, 1990, the City Council reversed the Planning Commission's approval of the project. Since then, the applicant has revised the plans to address the concerns expressed by the Council relating to the height of the building and its compatibility with surrounding properties. The redesign process included meetings with concerned neighbors, however, the revised plans have not been reviewed by staff or the Planning Commission. Therefore, no recommendation regarding the quality or impact of the design can be made at this time. The project, if it is to be reconsidered, should be returned to the Planning Commission for their review. /d?- A - 1 - OCT 9 199a BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION staff recommends that the council refer the item back to Planning commission at which time a new analysis and staff report, based on the revised plans, can be prepared. Prepared by: David Martin, Associate Planner Paul Berlant, Director of Planning Planning Division Community and Economic Development Department Attachments: A. City Council staff Report dated July 10, 1990 B. Revised Building Plans DM PC/CCMEMO 09/27/90 - 2 - CjED:PB:DKW:DM PCjCCCUP905 Council Mtg: July 10, 1990 Santa Monica, California 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 - 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 condition of approval in an attempt to provide space for the - 2 - planting of trees which would help to lessen the impact on the adj acent 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 objective 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 Commiss ion'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 Commission1s 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 401 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' 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 applicant'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. B. C. Appeal form dated 4/30/90 Appeal form dated 5/02/90 Planning Commission statement of Official Action dated 4/18/90 Planning Commission staff Report dated 4/18/90 Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations D. E. DM PC/CCCUP905 09/24/90 - 6 - ~/.I- . ',..f- '_ ,- -- ,-:- __ ~-L C:tv of Santa Monica CO"1"L;;;;Y aM E~nc;r:c Jevelcpmef'1 Separti""le'il Planning and Zoning DI"lsloo :2' 3',458'0341 f '_ toOl '. ,J .r I " r' -j , .. , ( \" ~~ I . '-' APPEAL FORM FEE $10000 Date Filed Received by Recept No -:. L "~.,.- _ rl~ '-'_1-, , ! - ..- ~Ja:'!'!e Se~~,est~ Savarovs~y : :-;) ~; a s .'--~2.::1gtc:;, S t:-ee t, r:ar 1;--:3. ::.e 1 H.81T, L ai.. l! orn:. a jL.:::'":;:I ~ AC~.ESS C:r:actiJerson :::r~c ='1eller, Eeller & Sn'.-'cer Phone (213) 458-1831 lc. 2 ~ L~ncoln Boulevard, Ste 300, Santa Ilonlca, CA 90 ~C 1 P:easeoesc:"-betneproJectanddeclslOnIObeaopealed The or:J"")ect lS the copst?:uctlor 0: a t.::-ree (3) story, fo~ty (~O) foot h~gh, flve (5) ~nlt COndOITlnlU~ bUlldln~ on a S~D- s~~~~~~c ~ot Davlng a wldth 0: forty-slx (46) feet. ?arkl~q ~o~lG ~~ ;?:0,~Ged l~ a th~rteen (13) space subterranean Darklng gara?e accessed fro~ ( =ce3~ P~rz Eo~levcrd. ~~e ~ro'ec~ was a~~rcve~ bv the Pla~~lna CC~~lSSlon or C~~8l~~Gn Lh~t a =o~r (4) f~ot-~~Excavated a~ea ~e ~al~ta~~ed ~lo~o tre west- ern ?=Q?er~y ~~~e. r~e ap?l~c~n~ ao~eals ~he =our (~) toot unexcavated a~ea ,...:;~~;;~~e-e:1t. ~:;:") 90-^"n- ~7"""""V ~9"l:'- '-'else ,.~moer Lv. V v ::J, . - - -" ~::> A:ldresS l4:J5 Jcea:: ?a~;";' 3oille"aro, Sar.ta :--'onlca. ::::.;; Apci,cant .s e ~ l ;~-~e s -:.r S 3. \_. arc"\Ts :::T..7 C"'g ~a' he3'ng :iate A.::::::::.::' 13, 1990 CI"';~.a:aC~iCr. ?l~!""!:-:l::q :;'='''--_-lss:.cn ;:~a~l:-'a C)~i CC~-::l~lcr;.3.1 ~:se ~eY-~~ ;: ",,,se s-a-e t"e specific reason(s) for :t1e a;JOeal P- -~ -~ "L'::"A~.c.. S2~ .; TT.;.=E:~E::~ ( '. ~ If addrtlOl'lal space IS needed use back ot am -_.~--~~~~- ", Dale ;'pr~l ; 0, 1990 S'gr.a':..re -- E.?IC ~,jEL:"'ER for :1eller & Snyder :cr Appllcant Sel~vestr Savarovsky kfD\;c. t\ ~,! GI-r A- . ATTACHMENT Please state the specific reasonts) for the appeal. The appllcant appeals the declsion of the Planning Commlsslon 10 grantlng a Conditional Use Perni t only with respect to the requlrement mandated by the commlssion that there be malntained an unexcavated four (4) foot area along the entire western property lIne of the proJect. ( The subject lS a substandard, forty-sIx (46) foot wlde parcel, 'zoned R3. The Staff Report concluded that "The proposed condominlum complies with all applicable provisIons of the Zunlng Ordlnance and the General Plan and therefore merlts approval", and recommended approval subJect to certain condltions. Applicant was found to be ln canpllance wlth the General Plan and the three (3) story, forty (40) foot helght restriction of SectIon 9013.6 of the Clty of Santa MonIca Zonlng Ordlnance. In that the parcel is less than fifty (50) feet wIde and the proposed development belng at least three (3) storles, there eXlsted no re~JIrement of a four (4) foot unexcavated sIde yard per SectIon 9040.17 of the Santa Monlca Zoning OrdInance. The sectlon provldes speclflcally for this exceptlon at page 124, ( "On any lot in an OP-Distrlct that has a w~dth of less than 50 feet, and WhlCh lS developed with at least 3 unlts, no Slde yard setback for subterranean or seni-subterranean parklng structures or basements 1S requlred. However at least fifty percent of the excavated area shall be landscaped with approprlate ground cover and plant rnaterlals 1n contalners." The purpose of ellIunating the requlrement lS an ObVlOUS recognltlon on the part of the PlannIng Departnent that optl~un development of a substandard lot cannot be accornpl1shed where st;oterranean parkIng is reduced by requlring unexcavated slde yards. In requiring a four (4) foot unexcavated Side yard, the orlglnally planned thirteen (13) parklng spaces must be reduced to eleven (11) spaces. As a result, the origInal develop~ent plans of two (2) three bedroom units, two (2) two bedroom unIts and loft and one (1) two bedroom unlt must be modIfied so as to ellmlnate the three bedroom units, replaclng them wlth two bedroom unlts. ASlde from the negative economic impact on the proJect, what was origlnally planned as a well balanced "famIly" oriented project, Will no longer have the phYSical attrlbutes to attract purchasers .-nth chl.ldren. It lS Appellant I s position that to requlre a four (4) foot (, ( Con~un1ty and Econoffilc Develcp~ent Department plannlng and Zoning D1V1S1cn Appeal Form Appl~cant Selivestr Savarovksy Aprll 30, 1990 Page 2 unexcavated side yard in a substandard lot is in contradiction of the unambiguous language of Sectlon 9040.17 and was made a requlrement to "punish" Applicant and to downscale a proJect WhlCh on ~ts face could not be downsca1ed because ~t was cons~stent wlth the Santa Monica Munlcipal Code and the General Plan. The "punlshment" made reference to sterns from a letter dlrected to the Plannlng CO~~lsslon by Mr. Bruce Favish, an attorney, who res1des 1n a two (2) story COndOIalnlUm cOr.',plex, ,adJacent to the west boundary of the proposed proJect. The letter requests that the "arboreal splendor" on the proJect slte be preserved so that Mr. Favlsh could rnalntaln his serene Vlew. The letter states, in part, "As I slt typlng this letter, my view" is through large slidlng glass doors 1n ~y Ilving roo1Tl, to a serene scene of afternoon llght filterlng through sWlnglng 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 splendld trees." On March 14, 1990, the Dlrector of General Servlces, Clt; ~~ Santa Monlca, directed a letter to Mr. Savarovsky, orderlrg hl~ to "t:-1TIl the tree WhlCh 15 encroachlng lnto the slde'W"alk back to the property line. Remove and dispose of dry leaves, trash, and other debrls surroundlng the building. Ma1ntaln on a regular basis.lI. Mr. Savarovsky understood this order to lnclude not only the trees adJacent to sldewalk but the trees well wlthln the property lines. In complYlng with the order, the trees were trimmed and the leaves were swept from the entire parcel. Wlthln days these large trees had agaln deposited an lnordlnate amount of leaves on the property. Recognlzing that the trees would have to eventually be removed to accommodate the subterranean parking requlrenents of the proJect, Mr. Savarovsky removed the trees on the property, none of WhlCh were adJacent to the sidewalk. His actions ~ere absolutely lawful and not in violation of any state or local law or ordinance. Mr. Savarovsky's only mistake was one 1n Judgment, not tak1ng lnto conslderation his act10ns as they related to the contents and proxinlty of Mr. Favlsh's letter. Although Mr. Savarovsky adamantly denled havlng taken the letter lnto conslderation or even havlng received and read the letter prior to hlS actlons, the Planning Conmission looked dlsfavorably upon Mr. Savarovsky's conduct ~n llght of Mr. Fav 1sh I s letter and as "punishment It, Without the support of any provision of the MuniCipal Code, placed Community and Economic Developnent Depart~ent Plannlng and Zonlng D~vis~on Appeal Form Appllcant Selivestr Savarovksy Aprll 30, 1990 Page 3 upon Mr. Savarovsky a burden WhlCh wlll alter the entlre concept of the project. ( In what we believe to be an abuse of discretlon on the part of the Planning Commission, in creating requl.rements in clear vlolation of its own regulatory provisions, the Planning Commission has established a bad precedent, a precedent Wh1Ch leaves the developer in the unenvious positIon of not knowlng, when purchasing a parcel, whether he can rely on the legal and equltable propcsltlon that the Plannlng Commission WIll follow and carry out the clear intent of Its own zonIng prOV1SloOns. ( We believe the Planning commission, w1thout punlshing the Applicant, could have, wlthin ltS discretIon, 1~po5ed requIrements upon Mr. Savarovsky WhICh would not requIre the concept modIfIcatIon of the project, but at the same tl~e allevlate the concerns of the owners 1n the adJacent condomInium project. As an exarple, the Plannlng Commlssion could have requlred that an aesthetlcally pleas long fence be erected along the property lIne and t:hat large planters, contalnlng nature trees / be placed at close lntervals along the fence llne. In this fashlon there would be adherence to the clear dictates of the Santa Monlca Zonl '1~ Or~lnance and the allevlatlon of a neIghbor's concern. ~e recognIze that these concerns cannot be fully satlsfled but cne can~ot expect ln a hlgh denslty thoroughfare, such as Ocean Park Boulevard, the absolute serenlty to WhlCh Mr. Favlsh has becone accustomed. Appllcant respectfully requests that the CIty CounCIl direct the Plannlng Commlssion to adhere to the provislons of the Santa MonIca Ordlnance, Sectlon 9040.17, and dlrect them to approve the pro) ect W~ thout the requlrement that there be a four (4) foot unexcavated slde yard. Respectfully subm~tted, MELLER & SNYDER A Profess1onal Law Corporation --~ BY;-~__ ~ /ERIC MELLER -- In behalf of Applicant Sellvestr Savarovsky C:t\: of Santa Monica Ccr.'!"'lU,.rf 3~od E:.::'1O'"l cJeveiopment Departme'1t Planning and Zoning Dlvlslon :213; 4586341 APPEAL FORM -./ .L I Jr...___,,-","f , ..... - iI\,o '-..... ~ _ \,. f)/'1 I . I .__Ir:~ j ~ ~.~ L! i i:'1 l!.i..-- ~.,J.r' -' - -, \ , " ., ...-......... FEE $1:-000 Date ;:'Ied ~-=- .) - [.1 L qecelved by ,;",",.-' L_ Receipt No I "" ,'-. J & '1 P~...\, :"'--J..1-.-"';:,t! 4-,,"?c:' C 10...+. C"Y1 C"xv,..., tr.. Mh\" (~, ~ t1 0 (. '1 c ~ Phone - I (~ Ii") ~ ~ ;' 2- -; f.- - I'-fC < O(O'h'V\ f0-,; ~ t5,., ~ ~ \' cu"d c L -p q v - co 'S'" ~, ........~,..-- I y. t-'.... 'SL nG -.+- ~c:~e t7 .-', :J lV ~. A:::~'ess ;t- 5" ;;.. ~ I <..j ~ -< t .u. f-~ C:'\n'::,~', ;:lerscn"'"';J 1'::... I - -... I~' VI ue: W r r'in Please descrbe ~ project ana dec:SlOn to tie apoeaied c' ~~- '-'\ rtc. -c. ~ c..f Case ".;;..;mbe/ C-1..,~ P qC 'CC~/ ,.,f,U \L.l{~S ~/~ \L ~ - B tv ~ ~ i I i~'" r r S? vo..y n \; "'J J:--....; I~ 'I .\ I 4 , l ,\(,."J~ Co ( A} 0" f'o-va.I ,d I ~t..,. r't4vloL r1 ..n...,-< I J "" CfC ( -)' A.:cress Appca"'t C''l~ "ial r.ean~g ca:e 01"g,.a: ac::on :::;ease s,ate 't-e specific reason(s) lor the appeal ~.,- c(.t~cC.c ( \. ~.;; 1.\. ,,-.rc..t.. i (") \ ~.,,~, T .... r. - . ( Sognat...re r;-: ~ _ If ~11D:IiJJ SI:)aCa . needed. us. bd; of bin ~L I'/(Lv~ Da_ l) I c..z. r:~., I ~ \. f t--' 0.+ 1 .?-- '. f ' A.. 1T1-\C 1 ~ r-../I r t-~ - ts. )~qc ( ( ~ - - ---- 1405 OCEk~ Pk~K EOV~EVARD: ~EXORANJL~ RE APPEAL/REVOCATIO~ Of CONDITIONAL CSE PE~~IT P=cposed development site: 1405 Ocean Park Boulevard/CUP 90-005 ?la~ning comm~ssion hearing date: April 18, 1990 Pet~t~cning par~y: 2525 14th Street Homeowners Association I. RE~IEF SOCGHT Thl.S action is brought of behalf of the 2525 14th street Hc~eowners Association (hereafter "Homeowners"), an aS5ociat~on ~epresenting seven condominium owners located on property i~~ediately west of 1405 Ocean Park Boulevard (hereafter "property,,).l Pursuant to City of Santa Monl.ca Comprehensive Land 1:se and Zoning Ordinance (hereafter "Ordinance") f 9114.7, the Ho~eowners seek revocation of a co~ditional use permit granted by ~he ?lar.ning Co~~ission on Aprll 18, 1990 to sylvestr Savarovsky (IIMr. Savarovsky"), developer of a proposed 5-unit ccndo::liniu::I project en the Property. Alternatl.vely, p~rsuant to Ordinance s~ 9114.8, and 9132.1 through 9132.4, the Homeowners appeal the Plarnl.ng Commission's approval of the conditional use perm~t. I~ lS i~portant to state that the Homeowners are in no way opposed to const~~ction of condominiums on the Property. It is the nature of the pro] ect proposed and conduct of the developer which necessitate this action. As citizens of Santa Monica, the Homeowners entreat lThe homeowners at 2525 14th street are: Avram an::i Nina Dcrfman (#l); Jonathan Udell (#2); Rosemary Leach (#3); Joe and Joy will~ams (*4): Dorothy Smith (#5); Bruce Favish (.6): and Art~ur Soll <*7). Four of the seven homeowners sub~itted separate :etters to the Planning CO~lssion 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 ~n 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 t~e~r elec~ed and appo:nted offlcials ~mpa~==ent of thelr l~ves and homes WhlCh Mr. as proposed, will cause. to prevent need~ess Savarovsky's project, II. BACKG~C::-ND ( '-- A. ~~e Property. ~r. Savarcvsky 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, WhlCh created a complete privacy screen for owners in our buildlng. The ?roFerty contains a large setback on the west side providlng a sig~:f~ca~t separation between the property's existing structure a~d our b~l~d~~g. ( 3. Zor.:ng and Surroundinq Uses. T~e property is zoned R3. Except for one island of C2 zon~~;, Ccea~ Park Boulevard is zoned RJ on both sides frc~ just east ~f ::~coln Boulevard to 25th Street where t~e Santa Mon1ca Busir.ess Park begins. Surrounding uses consist of two-story multi-family resldential on the adjacent lot to the east (R3), one-story multi- family across Ocean Park Boulevard to the south (R3), two-story multi-fa~ily residential on the adjacent lot to the west (R3) and two-story, multi-family residential on the adj acent lot to the ~orth {R2}.2 Other residential structures within a ~~arter mile 2The Planning Divisionfs staff report incorrectly indicates that the property on the adjacent lot to the west (our buildlng) 1S a three-story structure. It is a two-story, flat-roofed structure. The report also indicates that the lot to the north 1S zoned R3. It is zoned R2. These discrepancies are indicated in the event they may contribute to any mlsunderstanding ot the existing character and state of the resldential neighborhood. :2 (, ( radlUS are either one or two stories, with larger than required setbacks. Along Ocean Park from Li~coln to 25th Street there are dozens of mUlti-family resldential structures. Of all those str~ctures, only 3 are bu:lt to heights exceedlng 30 feet. Thus, though ocean Park Boulevard ~s zC:led R3 lit is almost entirely built to R2 specifications. Even a new condominium project proposed for 1818 Ocean Park 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. Tr.e Proposed Develct~ent. Mr. Savarovsky removed tenants from the Property under the Ellis Act and on or about January 5, 1990 filed a Development ReviewjCondltional Use Pe~it Application with the City Planning Divis:on. ~he proposed development is a 3-story structure, plus loft, plus rooftop terrace with planters. The building w~ll be 40 ft. in height above an average natural grade of 100.37. Witho~t ta:<lng into account the added height of rooftop plantings, t::.e bUlld.:ng will tower over the adj acent 2-story mul ti-resident:al structures by 18 to 20 feet, or the equivalent of two stories. The pro) ect provides 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 adjacent 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 conceSS1on to landscap:ng in the origlnal 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 p:anters. The design provides no specifications for the nature or s:ze of plantings proposed. At the Planning Co~~ssion hearing, Richard Manion speaking on behalf of the applicant, testified that the developer would accommodate patio plants in gallon ~ontainers ar.d that the rooftop planters would provide privacy for adJace~t residents and Ita more verdant effectll. The plans submitted do not show or describe the gallon plantings or the rooftop plan~ings. Further, Mr. Manion I s comments did not address the substantlal pr:. vacy invasion to be sui f ered by adj acent owners due to proximi ty ~ and ~e1ght of the project. 7he Planning Co~~ission ordered as a condition of the cor.ditional use permit that the 2 ft. planting strip on the west F=operty line be increased to 4 ft., thereby permitting planting 0: la=ge replacement trees co~parable to the two trees removed by Mr. Savarovsky. (See section III.B. below.) Mr. Savarcvsky has appe3.led tr..is condition and seeks to have the planting st:-:p :-estored to 2 ft. As discussed below, retentlon of t~1S 4 :t. ~la~ting str~p is imperative if any adequate screening trees a~e ~o be p:'anted. ( III. MR. SAVk~OVSKY'S MISCONDUCT JUSTIFIES PERMIT REVOCATION Mr. Savarovsky's conduct has been characterized by arrogant d1sregard for the rights of neighbors to be informed and have the opportunity to participate in the development approval process, ar.d for disreqard of City agencies charged with overseeing development proposals. A. Failure to Notifv Neiahbors. ~he first page of the City's Development Review/Conditional ~se Pe~it Application strongly encourages developers to contact neigtlbors before submitting a permit application, and requests 4 c. ( ~nformation regarding the developer's contact with i~ed~a~e neighbors and applicable nelghborhood groups, including speciflc names and dates of contact. Mr. Savarovsky's appli~ation contains no na~es or dates, but states the following: "Applicant in the process of contacting proj ect neighbors. To date Homeowners Asscciatio:l President of adjoining 7 unit condominiUI:l has been contacted. Names of other persons contacted shall be submitted within 2 weeks of 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 feat'...lres. The "contact" referred to by Mr. Savarovsky was in the nat:lre of casual small talk on the street. (See Appendix of heari~g excerpts.) Mr. Williams emphatically stated he never gave explicit or tacit approval to any project and first learned of the na~ure of the proposed development when he received notice on or abo~t Apr~l 6, 1990 of the Planning Corr~ission hearing. Wit~ ~~e possible exception of Avrarn and Nina Dorfman, who are or ho~e ~o be co-venturers w~th Mr. Savarovsky on other real estate projects, no one in our condom~nium had any notice of the proposed development until about April 6, 1990 when notices of the Plannir.g 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 cond~tional use permlt application, certified with his signature, he should be bound to comply with that condition before receiving permit approval. The fa~lure 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 requirem.ents, public hearings, and neighborhood 5 ( ( groups. This obJective lS unde~ined when a develcper 1S pe~itted to avold and mlsrepresent ne~ghborhood contact. Fallure to SUb~lt ~a~es of neighbors contacted violates the self-i=posed ter=s of Mr. Sa....arovsky's appl ication and i=pairs the neighbors' rights to partlcipate meaningfully in the develop=ent process. B. S1,;bmission of Inaccurate Certified List of property Owners and Tenants. By let~er dated January 18, 1990, David Martin of the City Plan~ing Divlsicn advised Mr. Savarovsky that his application for a Co~ditlonal ~se Permit was incomplete because it did not contaln nC':.lflcation :materials as specified on the "Requirements for Radius Y.ap a:;d Certified List of Property Owners and Tenants. II Subse~~ently Mr. Savarovsky submitted these materials. h~ile the ?o~ecwners have not scrutinized the entire list for ac=uracy, there lS one glaring omission which was probably not accidental. The proper':y adjacent to 1405 Ocean Park on the east side is 1413 Ocean Park. :t lS a 5 unit townhouse building all of which units are re:lted to tenants. Per the IfRequire:nents for Radius Map a:1d Certl:led List of Property Owners and Tenants", Mr. Savarovsky was required to ascertain the names of the indlv~di.lal tenar:::.s f::r u:cl'",lsion on the mailing list. The o::ly mailing :or :'4l3 Oce3.:1 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 !1Q written notice of the Aprl.l 18 Planning COmID.ission hearing. Consequently, these neighbors did not have an opportunity to submit written opposition to the proJect and only learned of the Plan~inq 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 co~pletely o:nitted from the Certified List of Property Owners and Tenants. The notice which was sent to Heus Development, presumably 6 (, ( ~he record owner, was addressed to a post office box with no z:p code and may well never have been delivered. Mr. Savarovsky's sub~ission of an inaccurate ~ist, omitting key neighbors, not only evidences callous disregard for neighborhood interests and disrespect for the development approval process, but violates City Pla~ning requirements and perpetrates a fraud on the City Planning Office, the Planning Conmisslon, and the ne igr.bors . 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 ~r. Savarovsky, Bruce Favish of our building urged the Commission to glve consideration to these trees and attempt to preserve the~, or at minimu~ order their preservation pending final de~olltic~ 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. Fav1sh had all the other meeting participants "on hold" and had to contact them and let them know the meeting was cancelled. Mr. Savarovsky has never 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 re~~ire replacement of cc~parable trees.4 Mr. Fav~sh spoke W~ th a City Planner on Aprll 6 specifically to ascertain whe~her the developer could remove trees without a permit and was advised that the trees could not be re=oved until a demolition pe~lt was obtained, which could take 6 to 9 months. Mr. Favlsh rel:ed on this info~.atlan is forebearing from i~Junct~on on behalf of the Ho~eowners to preserve least u~til final demolition approval was obtained. On or about April 11, just two days after receiving a copy of Mr. Fav ish's letter, and one week in advance of the Planning ccmmision hearing, Mr. Savarovsky cut down the trees. Mr. FavisM was out of town and returned two days before the Planning seeking an the trees at ( 4~r. Favlshls letter states ir.ter alia: . . . Mr. Savarovsky's development, if approved, will have no less effect than to destroy DY enJc}~ent of my home. . . . T~e ldyllic scene I have tried to descr:be is why I bought oy condominium: there is a powerful sense of prlvacy, aILple lig~t, air and unexpected natural beauty in the m~dst of ur=a~ cro'''''dinq. Dorothy Smith of our building subm~ tt.ed a letter -='0 ';:~e ?:a:-.:;.~ng Commission stating, inter al::..a: ( I have lived here for almost 18 years now, and ln~t~ally when I surveyed the apartment, the most striking feature was the "stand of trees" which the apartments overlook from both the 1 i v inq 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 proper~y 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 anbiance 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 extre:ely 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 w:ndows to alleviate her discomfort. 8 ( ( Co=~~ss~on hearing to discover their destruction. The unnecessary and brutally insensitive destructlon of the trees, before Mr. Savarovsky had even sought Planning Co~~issio~ app~oval and before receiving a deI:olition per:nit, has caused cons:de~able emotional distress to residents of our bU11ding, phys:cal d:sco~fort, increase in interior temperatures due to loss 0: shadel increase in street noise due to loss of sound i~sulatlon, 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 I expression of concern about the ~rees: he cut them down before the Planning Commission had an opportunity to exercise jurisdiction over the tree issue, thereby removing a poss:ble 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 re~oval had nothing to do with Mr. Favlsh's letter or the upcoming Planning Commission hearing. He was rebuked by the CO~ulssion for making patent ~isrcpresentations regarding these ~atters. (See Appe~d~x cf ~earing excerpts.) Some may accept Mr. Savarovsky's action, making the argu=ent t~at 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 anY'Jay. Mr. Savarovsky was on potic~ from Mr. Favish's letter that the trees were an issue of extreme concern over which the neighbors wlshed 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 Co~ission. By unilaterally destroying the trees, Hr. 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 co~1s.1on 9 c' ( could have ordered preservation of the trees untl1 a de~ollt1on pernlt was obtained). It may take Mr. Savarovsky months or years ~o begin construction. His proJect may never be =uilt. However t~e trees are gone forever. Moreover, it is a dangerous precedent for developers to be a~le to pre-empt neighborhood and City agency action by eradicat~ng iSSues which they believe, or worse have notice, are to be raised Wlt~ Clty agencies for review. Our society does not co~done 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 t s right to address neighborhood concerns as part of the development process? ~. Misrepresentatlons to Planninq Co~~ission. In addition to submitting an inaccurate certified list of prcperty owners and tenants, failing to have any substant~ve contact about the project with any neighbors or neighborhccd assoclations, failure to submit a list of neighbors contacted as represented in his application, and needlessly destroYl~g =at~=e trees after belng put on notice of the neighbors' deSlre to ~ave the trees addressed by the Planning Ccmmisslon, Mr. savarovsky made 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, soz::e 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 submlt a list of property owners contacted, in violation ot the applicant's 10 ( ( own representation that he would do so, his application must be deereed ~ncomplete and the approval as hav~ng been obtained by fra~d or ~isrepresentation. By misrepresenting the nature and extent of commur:~cations with our HOI:'.eowners Association, Mr. Savarovsky m~sled the Planning Department and the Commission. By contending that he was directed by General Services to remove trees on tte west side of the Property, Mr. Savarovsky made misrepresentatlons to the Co~~~ssion. By destroying trees after being put on notlce that they were an issue to be addressed by the Planning Co~~ission, 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 Co=~ission of the opportunity to act on a matter over Which they otherwise could have exercised jurisdiction. For these reasons, the Councll is urged to revoke Mr. Savarovsky's conditional use permlt pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance i 9114.7. III. T~E COL~CIL SHOULD PRESERVE THE FOL~ FOOT PLANTI~G S7RIP To add insult to injury, Mr. Savarovsky has appealed t~e CO::'.::liss~on decision, seeking inter alia to have overturned "::":e condition of a 4 foot planting strip. The Co~ncil must uphold t~e :our foot plantinq strip. Our association has met Wl. th three separate landscapers, all of whom stated that trees of reasonable height could be planted in a four foot strip (e.g., 48" box trees), but that only small saplings could be planted in a two foot strlp. 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 ot their former tree coveraqe but will have to sutfer permanent loss ot privacy I shade, wildlife, beauty and market value. The tour foot planting strip ~ust be preserved. It it is, then ARB will have an opportunity to address adequate landscaping. If a two foot strip is allowed, replacement tree coveraqe will be 11 :::-posslble. IV. ~HE ?ROJEC~ HEIGHT SEO~L~ 9E RE~~CED A. Jurisdiction to O~der Height Red~ction. 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 9 9013.1 states as a purpose of R3 zon~ng to ( . lI~alntaln and protect the existing character and state of the ~esldential neighborhood." Ordinance 9 9060.3(c) g~ants the Plannir.g Conulllsslon, and City Council on appeal, the express a'.ltr:orl ty to reduce height of condominium proj ects, notT....i thstanding ( ZO~1.ng: (c) Yard and Height Re~~irements. All new condo~lniu~ p::-ojects shall comply with property development standards for the district in which the condo~inium projec~ 1S to be located except that nothing in this Section shall be construed to prohibit the i~posit~on of more restr~ctive requirements as a condition of approval by 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 not whether t.he 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 ~i 9013.1 and 9060.3(c). As stated earlier I while the area of Ocean ParK Boulevard under consideration is technically zoned RJ, in fact it is predomlna ted by lower density, lower height levels and larger 12 ( ( setbacks. It is essen~ially built to R2 scale or less. h~at mo~e 1S needed to establish that the "existing character and state of the residential neighborhood" is one or two story bU1ld-outs: Furt~er, all the i~~ediately surrounding structures are ene 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 maximu:n 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. T~e lot is sir.:ply too small to accoIt1:lodate the height and mass of the p~oposed project. Second, the health, safety, and welfare of our Homeowners will be i~paired by the project in that: 1) its height will obscure any d1~ec~ sunlight and block any direct view of sky; 2) it will impair cross-ventilation which is our pr1mary source of cool1ng in hot weather; 3) it will invade our privacy~ 4} it will inc~ease noise levels~ and 5) it will require much higher trees than are possible to p~ant to provide an effective screen. Sc;ne City officials have indicated that City "policyll ~estricts the:!! fro::1 ordering height reductions. The Cotmcll is asked to recognize a policy of protecting the healt~, safety ar.d welfare of two buildings full of its constituents who are belng 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 helg~t. The Council is urged to consider the Homeowners' policy i~terest in having a breeze and being able to see some sun and sky outside their windows, instead of just neighbors.5 SAn especially frustrating aspect of this case is that it appears the developer could provide comparable multifamily housinq and make just as much money by building a row of t....o-story townhouses, with nice landscaping included. An excellent example 1S provided by a project proposed for 1818 Ocean Park (the Council 13 c' ( B. A:te~ratively, ~~e ?~Olect Heloht Should Be Scaled Bac~. At the least, the projec~ should be scaled back to lessen its i~pa~t on the adJacent str~ctures. This could be. achieved by a ~u~~er of design ~odifications, including setting back t~e structure from the second floor up, having roofs sloped, balconies recessed, etc. The focus of these modifications should be to open ~p space for light and air to the adjacent bu~ldings, to enha~ce p=:vacy, and to reduce the massing effect of the structure. V. CONCl.USION 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' r:ghts to participate in the development process and the City's efforts to promote such participation, and which needlessly or at leas~ prematu=ely destroys our City'S tree resourceS, will not be tolerated. His conditional use permit should be revoked. and City Plar.ning Division are encouraged to reVlew t~e plans for th:s proJect). 1818 Ocean Park is an R3 property wi~h a lc~ J~s~ slightly larger than Mr. Savarovsky's (50' x 150' vs. 46' x l40';. ~ctwlthstandlng the R3 zoning, the developer, Davld Aurell, has opted to des~gn a 2-story plus loft build~ng, ~ith sloped Ilv~ng room, which will harmonize with the surrounding 2-story multi- resldential buildings. The design also includes numerous tree plantings on both sideyards, with a four foot planting str~p 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 vill probably be less than Mr. Savarovsky' s 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: liTo the maximum extent possible, appl~cants 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." 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 c' ( Alternatively, the Counc~l is requested to order redes~gn of ~he proj ect with a reduced helght while maintainlng -:he four fact planti~g strip. Finally, at minimum the Council is asked to order redesign in a manner which will reduce the loss of light, air a~d privacy resulting from the proposed height of the structure. --'J ~ j h~ff~ Srtlce fav.sh, Vice PreSldent 2525 14th Street Homeowners Associa~ion DATE~: May 2, 1990 15 A?PENDIX - ~~;SC~I?TION OF PCrtT!ONS OF P~~NING CO~1:SS:0N HEARI~G HEL~ APRIL 18, 1990 cc~~ssioner Sto~e (to Eric Meller, counsel for Mr. Savarcvsky): "Maybe you're the one, maybe you're not the ene, to answer as to whether or not the City had made overtures to the owner to demolish, to elimlnate 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 - lt's a notice to remove trees and/or litter - directed from Mr. Stanley Scholl, Director of General Servlces, city of Santa Monica. It C01Tunissl.oner: "So the City directed that the trees be re!:loved?lI ( ~r. Meller: IINot that the trees be removed, but that specifically trim the trees which is encroaching on the sldewalk, removing, dispose of dry leaves, trash and other debris surrounding the building. Apparently, land dispose trees and litterl - apparently Mr. Savarovsky advises me that the trees were creatl.ng an imposslble nuisance. He had attempted to trim the trees on several occasions. Apparently that wasn't successful. That wasn't solving the problem of the lltter and that's the reason he took it upon hlmself in total, which meant removal of what was creating the nuisance. Bu~ this order was issued and directed to hlm and it's ~y understa~ding that under no circu~stances did Mr. Savarovsky re~ove those trees in response to Mr. Favish's letter.H ( Mr. Savarovsky: "See I have a certified letter from General Ser;ice maintenance division. And first I cut just branches of tne 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 un~ts, so it's create nUlsance so I have no other choice. . ,II . . . Commissioner Mechur: "Just for the record, the letter fror.:l 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." 16 c' Commissioner Mechur: "I think whatls really disheartening is the sense of misrepresentation that live gotten and I would cautlon the appllcant, if this proJect moves ahead, to really think strongly about being open and ho~est as they go forward w~th this proJect because I assume people will be watching it. My feeling is that the notion that the applicant contacted the nelghbors 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 dow~ 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 ot the year. You know, it's just fabrication in my understanding. If you contlnue to operate 1n that fashion youlre 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 I S a caution at this pOlnt:.1I Co:r:-..IInssioner Pyn: "Just one comment. I would urge the applicant though to be a lot more outgoing toward the neigr~ors and to pay attention to their concerns and to wo=k w1th them as the project, if approved, proceeds. It's k~r.d of high-handed to make it just a completely informal 'hew's it going' kind of thing. I strongly encourage you to be muc~ ~ore outgo~nq. [Seconded by another Co~issioner.] ( Commissioner Nelson: "Quite frankly, when I went by the project 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. Ilm 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'~ going to cut you absolutely no slack." 17 STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION ?~OJEC'I' }'T~~3ER: Conditional Use Permit 90-005 Tentat~ve Tract Map 49015 LOCA7ION: 1405 Ocean Park Boulevard APPLICANT: Selivestr Savarovsky R:::QCEST: Application for a Conditional Use Permit and a vestlng Tentative Tract Map to allow the con- struction of a five unit ccndo~inlum proJect. PLA~;~;n~G ccr.n~:SSImr ACTION ( O~!18/90 Date. XX Approved project based on t~e follo~lng f:ndlngs and subject to the condltior.s below. Denied. Other. :-:::~;r A -: =~.'E TRJ>..C"l' r.~p FINDINGS ( :-~e p~oposed subdlvision, together wl~h l~S provls:cn :or :ts deslgn and improve"ents, is conslstent ~lth ap?llcab:e general and speclflc plans as adopted by the Clty of Santa Konica in that the plan conforms to the provlslons 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 wlt~ no ~nusual characteristics. 3. The site is physically suitable for the p~oposed denslty of development in that a 6,440 sq~are foot let In t~e R3 District can accommodate 5 unlts. t. . The design of the subdivision or the proposed improve~ents wlll not cause substantial environmental damage or sub- stantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or thelr habltat in that the proposed development 1S an In-flll of urban land adequately served by existing infrastructure. 5. The design of the subdivision or the type of ir.prove~ent will not cause serious public health problems in that the proposed development complies with the prov1sions of the Zonlng Ordinance and General Plan. - 1 - f\(\T-Y iJ M 0 r,J T G 6. ~he design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, aC~Jired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed subdivls~on in that the subject site is ade- quately served by existlng streets and alley~. CONDITIONAL USE PE~IT FINDINGS 1. The proposed use is one conditionally permitted within the subject district ar.d complies with all of the applicable provisions of the. "city of Santa Monica Comprehensive La'1d Use and Zoning Ordinance", in that the proposed condomini- um conforms to the zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. 2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located, in that It would be located in a multi-famlly residential district. c' -3. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of la:1d use being proposed, in that the proposed pro] ect ~eets the density standards for the R3 District. ~. The proposed use is compatible w~th any of the land uses presently on the sUbject parcel if the present land uses are to rema1n, in that the eXlsting structure would be de7Lolished. 5. The proposed use would be compatible with ex~sting and pern:ss~ble land uses with~n the district and the gene~al area ~:1 WhlCh the proposed use is to be located, :n t~at the area 1S a m1X of single-family and n~ltl-farnlly res~dentlal units. 6. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrlrnental to public health and safety, ln that the proposed development is an in-fill of urban land ade~~ately served by existing infrastr~ct~re. ( 7. Public access to the proposed use will be adequate, ln that the site is adequately served by existlng streets and alleys. 8. The physical locatlon 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 Distrlct 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 DenS1 ty Housing (lrea by t.he Land Use Element of the General Plan. 10. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the p'..1bl ~c 1nterest, health, safety, convenience, or general wel!are, - 2 - in that the proposed project conplies with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. 1:. The proposed use conforms precisely to the applicable per- formance standards contained in Subchapter 61 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 o~ such uses in the i~~ediate vicinity I in that the area is def~ned as a multi-family residential district. CCND!~IONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS Plar.s ( 1. ~his approval is for those plans dated January 2, 1990, a copy of which shall be maintained ln the files of the Clty Plannlng Division. ProJect development shall be consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified In these cond1tlons of approval. 2. 7~e Plans shall comply with all other provisions of Chap- ter 1, Article IX of the Munic1pal Code, (Zonlng Or- dinance) and all other pertinent ordinances and General Plan policles of the ci~y of Santa Mcnlca. F~nal parking lot layout and specificatlo~s shall be 5~b- ject to the review and approval of the Parklnq and ~ra:!~~ E:1gineer. .. . pr:or to conslderation of the project by the Arch:tectural Review Boardl the applicant shall review disabled access requirements with the Building and Safety Division and nake any necessary changes in the project design to achieve compliance with such re~~irements. The Architec- tural Review Board, in its reVleWr shall pay part1cular attention to the aestheticl landscaping, and setback im- pacts of any ramps or other features necessitated by ac- cessibility requirements. ( ~. Minor amendments to the plans shall be SUbJect to approval by the Director of Plann~ng. A slgniflcant change in the approved concept shall be subject to Plannlng Ccrnmiss10n Review. Construction shall be in conformance with the plans submitted or as modified by the Planning CO~~1ssion, Architectural Review Board or Director of Planning. 6. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash en- closures, and slgnage shall be subject to reVlew and ap- proval by the Arch1tectural Review Board. - 3 - f. The Architectural Review Board, in its rev~ew, shall pay partlcular attention to the proJect's pedestrian orienta- t~on and amenities; scale and articulation of design e1e- ![",ents; exterior colors, textures and materials; window treatment: glazing; and landscap~ng. 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 e~p1oyers 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 resldential unit shall be due and payable at the t~me of issuance of a building permit for the construction or placenent 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. 1e. ;)emo1=-~icn ( C..til s~ch ti~e as the de~olitlon is undertaken, and ~~- less the structure is currently in use, the exist1ng struc~~re shall be malntained and secured by boardl~g up all openlngs, erect~ng a security fence, ar.d removlng 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 malntained until demolition occurs. 11. Unless otherwise approved by the Recreation and Parks De- partment and the Plann~ng Division, at the time of demoli- tion, any street trees shall be protected from darr.age, death, or removal per the require~ents of Ordlnance 12~2 (CCS) . 12. Immediately after de~olition (and during construction), a security fence, the height of which shall be the max~mU1:1 penni tted 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 demol i t.ion and construction - 4 - activ~ties at the site do not create pest control ~mpacts on the proJect nelghborhood. 14. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for this proJect, the proJect shall comply with any o~dlnance adop- ted by the City Councll to imple:nent 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 adept and implementing ordinance shall not excuse a developRr from the obligation to comply with any other condition imposed in connection with Program 10 of the Rous ing Ele7Lent. , - ~::.. Construction c' , ,. .0. unless otherwise approved by the Department of General services, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable durlng the gradlng and construction ~hase of the project. Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need replaclng or rerroval as a result of the project as deter- mlned by the Department of General Servlces shall be re- constructed to the satisfaction of the Department of Ge::1eral Servlces. Approval for this work shall be ob- tair,ed from the Depar'C~,ent of General Services prior ~o lssuance a: t~e buildlng permits. 1 i . Vehicles hauling dirt or other construction debris frc- the slte shall cover any open load with a tarpaul:.n c:- other secure coverlng to mlninize dust e~lssions. . ~ -- ~ . ( S~reet trees sr.all be raintained, relocated or provlded as req~ired In a rr.anner consistent w~th the city's Tree Code (Ord. 1242 CCS), per the specificatlons of the Departrr.ent 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 Recreatlon and Parks. 19. 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- pllcable, this plan shall 1) Specify the na~es/ addresses, telephone nu~~ers and bUSlness license nurbers of all con- tractors and subcontractors as well as the developer and archltect: 2) Describe how demolitlon of any eXl.stlng structures is to be accomplished~ 3) Indicate where ar.y cranes are to be located for erection/construction: ';) Describe how much of the public street, alleyway, or slde- walk is proposed to be used in conju::1ction with construc- t.:cn; 5) Set forth the extent and nature of any plle- drlving operations: 6) Describe the length and number of any tiebacks which nust extend under the property of other persons: 7) Speclfy the nature and extent of any dewater- lng and lts effect on any adjacent buildings: S) Descrlbe - 5 - anticipated contruction-related truC'k routes, number of truck trips, hours of hauling and parking locatlO:1~ 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 securlty measures including any fencing, lighting, and security personnel ~ 13) Provide a drainage plan~ 14) provlde a construction-period parking plan which shall minimize use of publ ic 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. Sald sign shall also indicate the hours of permissible construction work. ( 21. A copy of these conditions shall be posted in an easlly vislble and accessible location at all tlmes during con- struction at the proJect site. The pages shall be lami- r.ated or atherwlse protected to ensure durability of the copy. EnVlro~~ental Mltigation 22. ~ltra-lcw flow plu~ing fixtures are re~~lred on all ~e~ develoFrnent and remodeling where plunb~ng ~s to be added. (Maxi~um 1.6 gallon toilets and 1.0 gallon uri~als a~d lo~ flow shower head.) !~ls::ella:-:eous CUP Conditions 23. The building address shall be pa~nted on the roof of the bUllding and shall measure four feet by eight feet (32 square feet). ( 24. If any archaeological remains aloe uncovered durlng excavat:lon or construction, work in the affected area shall be suspended and a recognized specialist shall be contacted to conduct a survey of t.he affected area at project's owner's expense. A determLnation shall then be made by the Director of Planning to deternine the sig- nificance of the survey findings and appropriate actions and requirements, if any, to address such flndings. 25. Landscaping plans shall comply Wl th Subchapter 5B (Landscaping standards) of the zonin~ ordinance including use of water-conserving landscaplng materials, landscape malntenance and other standards contalned 1n the Subchapter. 26. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall screened in accordance with SMMC Section 90~O.13-9040.15. - 6 - Refuse areas shall be of a need, lncluding recycling. in its reVlew shall pay screening of such areas and size adequate to meet on-s~ te The Architectural ReVlew Board particular attention to the eg',upment. 27. street and/or alley lighting shall be provi~ed on public r~ghts of way adJacent to the project if and as needed per the specifications and with the approval of the Depart~ent 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 screenlng of such meters. 29. Any lofts or mezzanines shall not exceed 99 square feet unless appropriate required parking is suppl ied. Such areas shall also not exceed 33.3% of the room below unless compliance with the district's I1mits on number of storles can be malntained. c' Va::d~~y of Permits 30. The condltional use perm~t shall be of no further force or e:fect if the Tentative Map exp~res prlor to approval of a ri~al Map for said tract. 31. In the event penni ttee violates or fails to comply '-'nth any conditions of approval of this permlt, no further per- ~:~s, licenses, approvals or certificates of occu~a~cy s~all be issued unt~l s~ch v101aticn has been f~::1 ~erre::lled. ( ';; 1. "t::ln ten days of Planning Division transml t~a1 of t::.e Statement of Officlal Act~on, proJect appllcant shall sign and return a copy of the Statement of offlcial Actlon prepared by the Planning Division, agreeing to the Condi- tlons of approval and acknowledglng that failure to comply w~th such conditions shall constltute grounds for poten- tial revocation of the pernit approval. By signing same, applicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights appli- cant may possess regarding sald corditions. The signed Statement shall be returned to thd Planning Divislon. Failure to cor:ply with thlS condl tlon shall constl tute grounds for potential permit revocation. 33. This determination shall not become effective for a perlod of fourteen days from the date of detenninatlon, 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. .jL. SP~C:A~ CONDITIONS 34. The pitched roof shall be reduced prior to submission to the Archltectural Revlew Board. - 7 - 35. The trash enclosure shall be approved by the Sanl taticr. Depart~ent prior to SUb~lssion to the Archltectural ReVlew Board. 36. A four foot unexcavated side yard shall be provided along the west property l~ne. , ~ . TE~rATIVE TRACT MAP CONDITIONS .2 . ( 3 . All off site improvements req'..lired by the City Engineer shall be installed. Plans and specifications for off site improvements shall be prepared by a registered clvil 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 impr~ve- ments required by the City Engineer shall be prepared and a performance bond posted through the city Attorney's off~ce. The tentative ~ap shall expire 24 months after approval, except as provided in the provis~ons of California Govern- ....ent Code Section 66452.6 and Sections 9380-9382 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. During this ti~e period the final map shall be presented to the city of Santa Monlca for approval. 4. The developer shall provlde the Englneering Department of the city of Santa Monica with one Dizal Cloth prIn~ ~eproduction and microfilm of each sheet of the final ~a? after recordation. :> . ( Prior to approval of the final ~ap, CDndoml~i~m ASSOCla- t~on By-Laws (if applicable) and a Declaration of CC & R's shall be revlewed and approved by the City Attorney. The CC & R I s shall contain a non-discrimination clause as presented in Section 9392 (SMMC) and in the case of con- dOffilniums, contain such provisions as are required by Sec- tion 9l22E (S}n1C). 6. The developer shall provide for payment of a Condoniniu~ 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 provlslons of Sections 9330 through 9338 (S}U1C) 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 ot the fInal parcel map shall conform to the provisions ot Sec- tIons 9350 through 9357 (SMMC) and the Subdivision Map Act. - 8 - 9. The final map shall be recorded wi~h the Los Angeles Cour.- ty Recorder prior to ~ssuance of any bUlldlng pernit for a condominlum pro) ect pursuant to Government Code Secti.cr. 66499.30. 10. Pursuant to Section 9366 (Sln1C), if the subdivider or any lnterested person disagrees with any action by the Planning Commission with respect to the tentative map, an appeal or co~plaint may be filed in writing with the City Clerk. No appeal or complaint may be filed after a ten day period from the Corr~ission's decision on the tentative map. !~C:~S:O~ARY CNIT 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 wlth 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 tl:re and throug:J. subsequent sales of the property. An affordable unit shall be defined as being affordable to households with l.ncomes not exceeding 100% of the (WeD) ~os Angeles County ~edlan inco~e, expending not over 30% cf mor:.thly lnCOI':1.e on houslng costs, as specified by the Eouslng Division of the Depart~ent of Co~~unl~Y and Econc~ic Development. (, ( :h15 agreement shall be executed and recorded prlor ':0 app~oval of the Fir-al Xap. Such agree~e~~ shall spec:fy 1) responsiblli~ies of the develcper for mak:ng t~e unlt(s) aval:able to ellglble te~ants and 2) respons:b:l:- ".::ies of the Clty of Santa Honica to prepare app11cat.:.o:: forms for potential tenants, establlsh criteria fer quallficatlons, and monitor compliance with the provisions of the agreement. Owner shall provide the City Plam:ing Division wlth a ccnfor~ed copy of the recorded agreement prlor to approval of the Final Map. ':'his provision is intended to satlsfy t~e incluslor-ary housing requirements of Program 12 of the Ho~sing Element of the General Plan of the City of Santa Mcnlca ("Progra~ 1.2") . Developer may satisfy the obligations created by thlS Agreement by demonstrating to the Dlrector of Plan- n~ng compliance with Ordinance 1448 (Ces), which provldes lrplementation standards for Program 12. - 9 - A rrA-CHM~Nr ]) CITY PLANNING DIVISION community and Economic Development Department M E M 0 RAN DUM ~""'-':"'. _./"'1._ _ . Apr:.:" l8, :990 -..... . .- . :he Honorable Pla~n:r.g CO~~~sslcn ;"-!"\"" , . .... ,;<.v.... . ?lannl~g Staff c:::-----,...... _L,oIl:j....J:,."'-_ . Condltlonal ~se Fe~it 90-005 Ves~~ng tentat~ve T~ac~ ~ap 49015 Address: Appl~=ant: 1405 C=ean Park Boulevard Selives~~ Savarovsky Sl~:~R~:l rl=~:C~: A~pl:catlon for a Ccndit:c~al ~se ?e~~lt ar.d a Vestlng ~entatlve Tract ~ap to allow the ccnstr~ctlcn c: a five unlt con- ~C~:~~~~ proJec~. ?ecc~~endat:on: ripprcval ~~~~ COr.dlt:C~S -Q~~~. St- ~l'~'~ ~ .~ ~I~ :__.,~_ _ea.. l..l..q ....xpl...al..l"':1 Date: Al:.g"...ls:' ;, _330 S~==~~:s:on Ac~:cn ~eadl:~e: Apr:l " :;;J :s::=: ~:C;":-::~l ,,~~;;:J :J:::SC~:?T:C~: :-~e SUbJect property is a 6,':;40 sq. ft. parcel located on t~e ~c~th slde of Ocean Park Boulevard between :~~~ and 16th St~eets ~av~ng a frontage of 46 feet. Surroundlng uses cons~st of t~o- story :nult:-faruly resldentJ.al on the adJacent :ot ":0 t:"e east (RJ), ene-story, mUlti-family across Ocean ?ark Boulevard ~o the south (R3), three-story, mult~-fa~:ly reslder.tlal on t~e adjacent _o~ to ~~e wes~ (R3) and t~o-story, ~u:t~-f3~~11 en ~~e adJacen~ lo~ to the north (R3). :onl~g ~istrict: R3 ~ar.d ~se Districts: Medium Dens~ty HOUSlr.g ?arcel Area: l~O' X 46' = 6,~40 square :eet ?R8=~C7 C~SC~I?7!C~ accessed 1.S t!1e construct;.cn c f a bUlldu:g ~..Jl ':h a 13 space :=c~ Ccean Park Bo~levard. five unit, three s~or,! c..on- subterranean par:-:l::g ;ar3ge 7he btald.:.:-g '.ould .:eat-.;re ?roposed d~;-,,:n~L.:n. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision, together with its provision for its design and improvements, is consistent with applicable general and specif1c plans as adopted by the City of Santa Monica in that the plan conforms to the provisions of the zoninq-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 desiqn 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 existinq 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. 6. The desiqn 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 existinq streets and alleys. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS 1. The proposed use 1s one conditionally permitted within the subject district and complies with all of the applicable provisions ot 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. The proposed use would not impair the character ot the district in which it is to or located, in that it would be located in residential district. 3. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed, in that the proposed proj ect meets the density standards for the RJ District. 2. integrity and be established a multi-family 4. The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses presently on the subject parcel it the present land uses are to remain, in that the existing structure would be demolished. - 3 - 5. The proposed use would be compatible with exist1ng and permissible land uses within the district and the general area in ~hich 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-till 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 hannoniously to the sur- rounding neighborhood, in that all setbacks, lot coverage and height requirements for the R2 District have been met. 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 Dens i ty Hous inq area by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. . 9. 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. 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 us. 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 CONDITION~ Plans 1. This approval is for those plans dated January 2, 1"Q, 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 ordinance. 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 ~ake 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 conforma.nce with the plans submitted or as modified by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board or Director of planning. 6. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash en- closures, and siqnage 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 projectts pedestrian orienta- tion and amenities; scale and articulation of design ele- ments: exterior colors, textures and materials: window treatment; qlazinq; and landscaping. Fees 8. The City is contemplating the adoption of a Transportation Manaqement Plan Which is intended to mitiqate traffic and air quality impacts r..ultinq from both new and existing development. The Plan will likely incl ude an ordinance establ ishinq mitigation requirements, inc1 udinq 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 fee. 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 aeq. of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. Demolition - 5 - 10. t:nt~l such time as the demolition is undertaken, '.nd un- less the structure is currently in use, the existing structure shall be ma~ntained 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. t:nless 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. 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 proj ect, 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. Construction 15. Unle.. otherwise approved by the Department of General Service., all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable during the grading and construction phase of the project. 16. Sidewalks, curbs, qutters, paving and driveways which need replacing or removal as a result of the project .s 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 Service. prior to issuance of the buildinq permits. - 6 - 17. Vehicles haulinq dirt or other construction debris from the site shall cover any open load with A tarpaulin or other se~ure coverinq 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. 19. 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 nu~b.rs of all con- tractors and subcontractors as well as the developer and archi teet: 2) Describe how de1l1oli tion 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, nmn}:ler of truck trips, hours of haulinq 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 nu!,,_her of the owner and/or applicant for the purposes of responding to questions and complaints during the construction period. Said sign shall a180 indicate the hours of permissible construction work. 21. A copy of the.. conditions shall be posted in an easily visible and accessible location at all time. during con- struction at the project site. The page. shall be lami- nated or otherwise protected to ensure durability of the copy. Environmental Mitiqation - 1 - 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.) ~iscellaneous CUP Conditions 23. The pu~ldinq address shall be painted on the roof of the building and shall measure four feet by eight feet (32 square feet). 24. 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 with Subchapter SB (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 De located within the re- quired front yard setback area. The ArChitectural Review Board in its review shall pay particular attention to the location and screeninq of such meters. 29. Any lotts or mezzanines shall not exc.ed 99 square teet unl... appropriate required parking i. supplied. Such areas shall also not exceed 33.3\ ot the room below unless compliance with the district's limits on numher ot stori.. can De maintained. Validity of Permits 30. The conditior.al use permit shall be ot no further force or effect it 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 Oivision 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 app~i- 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. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CONDITIONS 1. All off site improvements required by the City Engineer shall be installed. Plans and specifications tor 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 atter approval, except as provided in the provisions ot California Govern- ment Code Section 66452.6 and Sections 9380-9382 ot the Santa Monica Municipal Code. During this time period the tinal map shall be presented to the City of Santa Monica for approval. 4. The developer shall provide the Engineerinq Department of the City of Santa Monica with one Oiza1 Cloth print reproduction and microfilm of each sheet of the tinal map after recordation. 5. Prior to approval of the final map. Condominium Associa- tion By-Laws (it applicable) and a Declaration ot CC , R'. shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The ee , R' s shall contain a non-discrimination clause as - 9 - presented iT'. dominiums, l tior. 9122E :ion 9392 (SMMC) and in the case of con- n such provisions as are required by Sec- . I . 6. The devel~ shall provide for payment of a condo~inium Tax of $1 per saleable residential unit per the provi- sions of ~ection 6651 et seq. of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. 7. The form, contents, accompanyinq 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 tiling of the final parcel map shall conform to the provisions of Sec- tions 9350 through 9357 (SliMC) and the Subdivision Map Act. B. 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. INCLVSIONARY UNIT CONDITIONS 11. The developer shall covenant and agree with the City of Santa Monica to the speciric terms, conditions and restrictions upon the possession, use and enjoyment or 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 on. 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 lOOt of the (HUD) Los Angeles County median income, expending not over Jot 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 ot 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, estaplish 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 1211) . 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. B. C. D. E. F. Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance Radius and Location Map Statistical Information Sheet Summery of CC << Rls Vesting Tentative Tract Map 49015 Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations DM PC/CtJP90005 04/10/90 - 11 - KUHIe: ATTACHMENT _A: CODE AND GENERAL p~~ CONFORMANCE Category Land Use ~unlcipal Code Element Project 5 Units Pe~itted Use 1 Unit/12S0 sq. ft.- 5 du Height 3 Stories/40' Setbacks 3 Stories/40' Front yard Sideyard 20' 20' 416" 416" 151 151 50% 50% \.J 13 Spaces 13 Spaces Rearyard Lot Coverage Parklng - 12 - ,- ~~ - , r lfl~ ~ ~ ---r--- . .. "' II ~-I "j t' "'1 ,~ .. 4 ~. -- I H 1 ~._ ~_ r-- - ,JI. ,.,' l' J...~I ~--~ '... II r- . If''' _ .... . - 14 tl t? rift _ _ t ---- ~ lI'JI. sa 'I It .f141. ... l1- ,1-- ~ "... ,-,. -f-""""'- !l ~, -"'-. . ~ . r , '" . ...........< -,".-.r;:- ~ .' ..,...,."\ /' ~.' ." . '1/ ~ 's .., , ~. V')~ b: z~ ..c. ~ I- ~ z_ , (.)' *' Y- . .- l~ ,:. t .. ,.. : ~ p ... ) -0( ...co ,.., 1! ! :;. '_~'l'. '1 . n.&.- '" It lU ~ . . I'~ I " . . "'. I It .. ...I,!!!I.:._ ,. ~ I .". ! ~ ~ , . "" . ~.. . . , . . " f -- " i "T_11 ""-:1 "l"'.' rn [ _"I" ]W ~O\J\.. t." , .. . LEGAL OESC'lIPTION L...o T :2- ~rt.{q ;2-2'7? CASE NO. Z0ME STREET ADDRESS 14ar:;, Dc.e:.~N "P.A42-Jot'- ~L"D, DATE PUBLIC HEARING DATE M"f'l!CANT ~l!A-\ ......1I!!.c:~2J- ~.bov'.b~,,>)o!...Y ....h :0", 'i;"Y t"/ .'" ~ .~. }"",' , ~~~'. '!~f.'~'RAD1U~ MA~ .'\Oft:.;.:;" ;,<-.~~, ,;6t..Zfl;Pb ~~.~,.~ '~'tC~ ?EP ~ ~!_M,f N.r /:: ..:';" ~:~~;~::;.;, 'J".:~",( " -.' 'CItY. .Qf". ,~~:. .' .,," '~.. ~f~:;i~~~"~}:~~S~;~t~ M O~ ica !:~,~~;~~~;'-~ "fi;~.;t;.' ~~~~~,-~.'t~ALlFON Nl \", '" .: ~ .'_". } ~, .~~,.A~ _'~." };..:-,. f:~, ~." :lL .. "... Reference: Atlas Map Sheet No Required Radius , t)t::JO... 00 STATISTICAL INFORMATION SHEET 5 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT 1405 OCEAN PARK OOULEVAP.D SANTA MONICA, CA LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 2, Tract 2255, MB22 -57 46' X 140' .. 6440 SF LOT AREA LOT COVERAGE 3.168 (4921) PERCENT AGE OF LOT Front Yard 50~ COVERED BY LANDSCAPING SldelBack Yards- 20~ UNIT SIZES Urntt Umt2 Urut3 Unit 4 Umt5 TOTAL = 1789 SF 1 786 SF 175 1 SF 1444 SF 1444 SF 82 14 SF EsrlMA TED SELLING PRICE OF UNITS Untts 1,2,3 $360,000 00 Uwts 4,5 $340,00000 TRACT NO.: "9015 ADDRESS: L405 oc.an P.rk !lvd RES UME . CO~DOMI~I~M ARTIC~ES OF ASSOC!A~ION BYLAWS AND CC~R's 1. Ty~e of Organ~zat~on. The or9an~zatlon shall be an unlncorporated homeowners' asscc~atlOn cons~stlnq 0= tne owners of the lndlvldual condom~nl'~ unlts. 2. Mernbersh1t:l. Membershlp shall be appurtenant to the condoMlnlum ownershlp, and each c~ne~ wlll automat1cally be a member of the Assoclatlon. 3. Member termlnat~cn: Membershlp can be tarmlnated only by trasfer of tltle from a condcmlnlum In the pro~ect. 4. Votlng Rlqhts: Each unlt shall be represented ln the aSsoclatlon by only one vote no matter how many owner. of the unlt there are. Fractlonal votes are not allowed. 5. Management. . The Assoclatlon shall be man&ged by a Board of Directors ele7te by the members of the ASSoclation. There shall be three offlcer conslst~ng of a Presldent, Vlce-Presldent/Treasurer, and secretary, wlth tarms of one year. Included ln the dutles and powers of the Board are enforcement of the prov1s1ons of the manaqement documents, ma1ntalnlnq common area and lta lmp:ovements, establ~Bhing and collectlnq regular and .peelal a..e..ments, and paYlnq appllcAble taxes, 10surance, service ffe., etc. The CCiR'S provlde for an annual meetlng for all owners and .peelal meetlngs as needed and requested by owners or the Board of Olrectora. BUSlneSS may not be conducted at any meeting of the owners wlthout a quorum (SO, Of the owners) p~e.ent 1n person or by pro)tY. 6. ProJect Llfe: ThlS 1. not addressed in the cc,at. but i. e.t~ated to be A mlnlmum of S5 years. 7. Effectlvity Term of and Amendments to CC&R's: ~he CC'R'. are blnding untll January 1, 2025, after WhlCh they are automatlcally extended for successiva perlQds of 21 years unless a ma)Orlty of owners ~ecords an lnstrument termlnat~n9 the declaratlon. The requlrements to amend the CC'R's are spelled out ~n great detall but, brlefly, It requ1res the vote of i5\ of the owners of the unlts. e. Malntenance Provlsions: Unlt5: Owners shall malnta~n the 1nterlors of thelr un~ts in such manner necessary In the Judgment of the Board to preserve and protect the attractlVe appearance and value of the proJect. Common Areas: The Boar4 19 responslble for the ma1ntenance of the Common Are., all lrnprovement. thereon, and all utl11t1es thereunder, except those malntalned by publ~c utillty companies, 1n qOod, clean, attractlve and sanltary order and repUI pursuant to rules estab11shed by the Soard of Directors and the Architectural Contrel Cemm1ttee. ~. 9. Pamage - Repa~r or Abandonment Prov~s~ons: If the proJect ~a totally or part~Ally deatroyed. a .pec~al ~e~~ng of the wembere ~9 called ~~th~n 4S day. of tne destruct~on ~o vote on whether or not to rep&~r the damage. rf they vote to reDul1d. each owner shall pay h~s proport~onat. share of the cost over and aDove the ~nsurance proceeds. If they vote to not rebu~ld. ~nsuranc. proceed. .hall be d~.tr~but8d among the owners and the~r lenders proport~onately to the~r share In the common area. In th~s case, all un~ts shall have an und~vlded 1I5th equal lnterest. 10. Oescr~pt~on and Ownersh1p of ConQOm~n1Um Un1tS: Each UOlt shall cons1st of a fee slmple Interest 10 and to the oart.:.cular unlt. .Unlt" 15 deflned as the elements of a co~domln~um Whlch are not owned 1n common with owners of other unlts 1n the proJect. The baundarles of the lodlvldual un~ts wll1 be sh~n and def1ned on the Condomln1urn Plan. :1. De.cr~pt~on, Ownerah~p, and US8 of Common Are.s: The Common Area 18 the entlre proJect except~ng all unlts. Portlons of It may be deslgnated as Reatrlcted CommOn Area, the use of WhlCh 1. exerc1sable only by the owner of the unlt appurtenant thereto. Each owner of a un~t owns 1/5th undlvlded lnterest as . tenant-~n-common of the Common Area. 1.2. Parking Spac.e Assignment T~.r. ~ill be a parking level which contain. 13 parking spac... T~elv. spac.. ~ill be asaign.d on the bas11l of un1t s1z.. and thare ahall b. on. visitors parking .pac.e 80 d.signat.d 13. Restr~ctlons: Owner's Flnanc1al/Legal Status: The CC&R's have no restrlctlona reqardlng the owner's flnanC1al or legal status. Use: All un1ts are to be used solely for S~ngl. F&ml1y Re.~dence5. There are add~tlonal restrict10ns regardlng use of s19ns, alteratlon. or addltlans, and parKlnq. Age: There are no re.erlctlona regarding ag.. Pets: 00g8, cats, and other domestic pets are allowed as long as they de not Qlsturb or annoy other owner. and do not cause damage to the common area. Pigs, goata, and hogs are restricted per the CC&R.S as are any anlmals to be used for commerclal purposes.