SR-402-001 (13)
~
~c2'-- 00/
\2-A
SEP 9 1986
C/ED:PC:RAS:RM:nh
Counc~l Mtg: September 9, 1986
Santa Monica, Callfornla
TO: Mayor and Clty Councll
FROM: Clty Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Plannlng CommlSSlon Conditlon of Approval of
Tentati ve Parcel Map 17599 and Condl tlonal Use Perm~ t
416, 2021 Thlrd Street, Two-Unit Condominlum.
Applicant/Appellant: Douglas A. Lowe for Lefcoe and
Wlutebread.
INTRODUCTION
ThlS report recommends that the Clty Councll uphold the appeal of
the applicant and approve Tcntatlve
Parcel Map
17599 and
Condltlonal Use Permlt 416 for a two unlt condomlnlum as
submltted by the applicant.
On May 5,
1986,
the Plannlng
Commission approved the proJect by a 6-0 vote with the condltlon
that access to the upper level roof decks be removed. The
applicant lS appeallng that cond~tlon.
BACKGROUND
ThlS proJect has a hlstory go~ng back to 1982 when a Development
Revlew for an two-unl t, three story apartment bu~ldlng and a
varlance for tandem parklng were approved by the Planning
CommlSSlon.
Under the interlm ordlnance ~n effect at that t~me,
all
resldential
proJects
were
requlred
to
have
Plannlng
Conunisslon reVlew and approval.
In 1984 a new ordlnance regulaLlng development was adopted such
that apartments were no longer subJect to Planning Commlss~on
\ 2.-A
- 1 -
SEP Q lS5€
review and approval. When the appllcant wished to change the
deslgn, an appllcatlon for an Adrnlnistratlve Approval was flIed.
On June 1, 1984, an Adminlstrdtlve Approval for thls proJect was
granted for the new deslgn wlthln the same envelope, still a
three-story, two-unit apartroent buildlng. The bUllding was
approved by the Architectural Revlew Board on October 3, 1984.
On November 27, 1985, the Adminlstratlve Approval was amended to
allow the roof levels to be used as decks. Subsequently, the
proJect was approved by the Callfornla Coastal Cornmlsslon and
bUl1dlng perrnlts were obtained.
After bUlldlng constructlon began, the owners declded they wanted
to change the proJect to a condominlum. To do so they flIed
appllcatlons for a Parcel Map and Condltlonal Use Permlt.
The SUbJect Parcel Map and Condltlonal Use Permlt would only
change the proJect from an apartment to a condomlnlum, and the
appl1cants requested that the design be allowed to rema1n
unchanged. The Plannlng Commission, however, upon hearlng
testlmony from nelghborhood resldents, added a condlt1on that the
uppermost roof area on each un1t (there are lower level balcooles
on each unlt) be made functlonally inaccesslble to prevent use as
roof decks. The purpose of th1S condition was to protect the
privacy of surrounding nelghbors. However, no speclflc
additlooal flndlng was adopted as a baS1S for the condltion. The
Plannlng Cornmlssion' s Statement of Offlc1al Actlon is contalned
in Attachment 1. A more detal1ed proJect hlstory and descriptlon
may be found 1n the May 5. 1986, Plannlng CornmlSSlon Staff Report
- 2 -
(Attachment 2) and proJect plans (Attachment 3).
ANALYSIS
The project, w~th or w~thout the subJect roof decks, is
conslstent with appl~cable Mun~cipal Code and General Plan
standards. Notlng that adopted development regulatlons do not
restr~ct the use of a roof for an open deck, such decks are
allowed where no d~scret~on ~s ~nvolved (e.g. apartment bUlld~ngs
weetlng Code requlrement). The request to make the building lnto
a condom~nlum, however, opens the proJect to d~scret~onary
reVlew. Under d~scretionary review, ~t ~s possible to regulate
such decks to preclude unreasonable reductlons of nelghbors'
prlvacy.
(In a s~ml.lar
case, the Councl1 recently allowed a
rema1n. Reference: Appeal on 1024 Bay
condom1n1um roof deck to
Street condom~nl.ums.)
Un1que to th~s case 1S that the subJect bUlld~ng and decks are
already constructed. The appl1cant contends that the reason for
the late appl~catlon to make the buildlng a condominium, after
construct1on was under way for an apartment, 1S based on
flnanc~al reasons and 1S not an lntent to C1rcumvent the plannlng
process. Denl.al of use of the decks on the subJect bu~ldlng
could result In the bUlldlng rema~n~ng an apartment. Glven the
bU1ldlng design, lncludlng ltS he~ght, lower level balconies and
wlndow placement, the prlvacy of adJolnlng properties Wl.ll be
affected whether or not the roof-top decks are left accessible.
- 3 -
COUNCIL CONSIDERA,!'ION
In actlng on thls ltem, the City Councll may deny the appeal and
approve the Tentatlve Parcel Map and Condltlonal Use Permit with
the flndings and condltlons contalned In the May 5, 1986,
Plannlng CorrmlSSlon Statement of Offlclal Action~ may uphold the
appeal by approvlng the Tentatlve Parcel Map and Condltlonal Use
Permit, as above, but deleting Condltion IIi or otherwlse act to
approve, cond1tional1y approve, or deny the proJect as 1t deems
approprlate.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendat1ons presented 1n thlS report do not have a
budget/flscal lmpact.
RECOMME~DATION
Staff respectfully recommends that the C1ty Councll uphold the
appeal and approve Tentatlve Parcel Map 17599 and Condltional Use
Permlt 416 wlth the flndings and conditions contalned 1n the May
5, 1986, Plannlng ComrnlSSlon Statement of Official Actlon, except
that Cond1tlon 11 be deleted.
Prepared by: R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Plannlng
Suzanne Frlck, Prlnclpal Planner
Rlchard Mllls, Associate Planner
Plannlng D1V1Slon
Communlty and Economlc Development Department
Attachments: 1. May 5, 1986 Plann1ng ComrnlSSlon Statement of
Offlclal Action
2. May 5, 1986, Plannlng ComrnlSSlon Staff Report
3. ProJect Plans
RM: nh
cc17599
- 4 -
...
')
J
?/cz-oCJ/
F\-rrAC\-\ MEN\ 1
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
~~MBER: TTM 17599, CUP 416
LOCATION: 2021 Third Street
APPLICANT: George Lefcae and Charles Whitebread
REQUEST: Two-Unlt CandOffi1nlum
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
...
5-5-86
Da te .
x
Approved based on the followlng findings and
sUbJect to the conditions below.
Denied.
Other.
FINDINGS
...
1. The proposed subdivision, together with its prevision for
its des1gn and improvements, 1S consistent with appl1cable
general and speciflc plans as adopted by the Clty of Santa
Monlca as noted ln this staff report and in the staff re-
port and determination for Development Review 120 and ZA
4589-Y, incorporated herein by reference.
2. The site is physically sui table for the proposed type of
development based on information set forth 1n this staff
report and in the staff report and determlnation for
Development Review 120 and ZA 4589-Y, lncorporated herein
by reference. ~
3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density
of development based on information set forth 1n this
staff report and in the staff report and determinatlon for
Development Review 120 and ZA 4589-Y, incorporated herein
by reference.
4. The deslgn of the subdivislon or the proposed improvements
will not cause substant1al environmental damage or sub-
stantlally and avoidably inJure fish or wl1dlife or their
hab1tat.
5. The design of the subdl. V1Slon or the type of improvement
w1ll not cause serious publ1C health problems.
- 1 -
--
)
J
"
)
6. The deslgn of the subdivision or the type of improvements
will not confllct with easements, acquired by the public
at large, for access through, or use of, property w~thln
the proposed subdlvision.
7. The design of the subdlvision provldes for future passive
or natural heating or coollng opportunl ties in the sub-
division to the extent feasible short of reducing allow-
able densities or standard yard setback requlrements.
8. The proposed use and locatlcn are in accordance with good
zoning practice, ln the public interest and necessary that
substantlal Justlce be done and the proposed use is com-
pat~ble w~th existing and potential uses within the
general area, trafflC or parking congestion will not
result, the public health, safety and general welfare are
protected and no harm to adJacent properties will result
based on rnformatlon set forth in this staff report and in
the staff report and determination for Development Review
120 and ZA 4589-Y, incorporated hereln by reference.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. All off site improvements required by the Cl ty Engineer
shall be installed. Plans and speciflcatlons for off 51te
improvements shall be prepared by a registered civil en-
glneer and approved by the City Engineer.
2. Before the City Engineer may approve the final map, a sub-
dlvlsion improvement agreement for all off 51te lmprove-
ments requlred by the City Engineer shall be prepared and
a performance bond posted through the Clty Attorney's
office.
3. The tentative map shall expire 24 months after approval,
except as provlded in the provi510ns of Callfornia Govern-
ment Code Section 66452.6 and sections 9380-9382 of the
Santa Monlca Municipal Code. Dur2ng this time period the
final map shall be presented to the City of Santa Monlca
for approval.
4. The developer shall provide the "Engineering Department of
the Clty of Santa Monica with one Dizal Cloth print
reproduction and microfl1m of each sheet of the flnal map
after recordation.
5. Prlor to approval of the final map, CondOmlnl.Um ASSOC2a-
tion By-Laws (if applicable) and a Declaratlon of CC & R's
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The
CC & R's shdll contain a nondiscrimination clause as pres-
ented in Sectlon 9392 (SMMC) and in the case of condominl-
urns, contaln such provls~ons as are required by Sectl.on
9l22E (SMMC).
- 2 -
-
)
)
6. The developer shall provJ..de for payment of a Condominium
Tax of $1,000 per saleable residential unJ..t per the provi-
Slons of Sectlon 6651 et seq. of the Santa Monlca
Municipal Code.
7. The form, contents, accompanYJ..ng data, and filing of the
flnal parcel map shall conform to the provisions of Sec-
tions 9350 through 9357 (SHMC) and the Subdivislon Map
Act.
8. The final map shall be recorded prior to the l5suance of a
final certificate of occupancy for the subject building.
9. This determinat10n shall not become effectJ..ve for a period
of ten days (twenty days for the Conditional Use Perml.t)
from the date of determination or, if appealed, untl.l a
fJ..nal determinat10n is made on the appeal.
.,
10. The Department of Building and Safety shall inspect the
property to conf1rm that l.t l.S be1ng bUl.lt l.n accordance
w1th approved plans.
11. Access to the roof shall be elJ..m1nated from Un1t A, Unit B
and the common tower, so that the upper roof of each unit
is not used as a deck.
12. The developer shall expedite complet1on of the project and
shall appoint a represent.at1ve to faci11tate discussion
with the nelghborhood 1n regard to the proJect. ~
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Israel, Farivar, Hecht, Perlman, Shearer, Hebald-Heyman
None
None
K.l.rshner
I hereby certify that this Statement of
accurately reflects the fina1 determination
Commission of the City of Santa Monica.
Official Action
of the Planning
slgnature
date
prlnt name and title
RM : nh
stcup416
5-7-86
- 3 -