SR-022503-6A
PCD:SF::F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\STRPT\2002\Appeal 02CUP017.doc
Council Mtg: February 25, 2003 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal 02APP-020 of the Planning Commission’s Denial of Conditional
Use Permit 02CUP-017 to allow the construction of a two-story, five (5)-
unit condominium development. Applicant/Appellant: 1719 Ocean Inc.
Address: 1719 Ocean Front Walk
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council uphold the appeal, and approve the
Conditional Use Permit to allow a one-year extension of the rights granted by CUP 99-
006 to allow the construction of a 5-unit condominium building at the subject site. The
Planning Commission, at its October 16, 2002 meeting, denied the project. The appeal
statement is contained in Attachment A and the two Planning Commission staff reports
are contained in Attachments B and C.
BACKGROUND
The applicant/appellant proposes to construct a two-story, 5-unit condominium
development with eleven subterranean parking spaces accessed from Marine Terrace.
The Planning Commission originally approved CUP 99-006 on June 9, 1999 and the
CUP became effective on June 24, 1999. The original term of the CUP was for two
years (June 24, 2001), however, the project’s rights were not exercised in this
timeframe, due in part to delays from an appeal of the Planning Commission approval
that was eventually withdrawn. This delay resulted in a request to approve an
1
administrative extension in accordance with SMMC section 9.04.20.12.060. The
administrative extension was granted allowing an additional year (June 24, 2002) to
exercise the rights of CUP 99-006. To date, the project has not obtained approval from
the California Coastal Commission nor has the plan check process been completed.
The applicant reports having presented the project to the Coastal Commission, but has
yet to receive approval and the matter is currently in litigation. Furthermore, the
applicant has noted problems with their geotechnical engineer resulting in additional
delays. Although the plan check process is nearly complete, these outstanding issues
preclude issuance of a building permit and therefore implementation of the CUP. For
these reasons, the applicant again seeks another one-year extension in accordance
with section 9.04.20.12.060. This extension request was heard by the Planning
Commission on October 16, 2002 and was denied. On October 28, 2002, the applicant
appealed the Planning Commission’s denial based on the reasons listed in the appeal
statement contained in Attachment A.
DISCUSSION
Project Description
The proposed project involves a request to extend CUP 99-006 by one-year to allow
additional time to gain approval from the California Coastal Commission and to secure
requisite building permits, and to amend condition of approval number 38 to reflect the
revised term of the permit. CUP 99-006 would allow the construction of a two-story, 30-
foot tall, five-unit condominium building with an 11 space subterranean parking garage
accessed fromMarine Terrace. The floor area for the five units will total 9,924 square
2
feet of livable space. Each unit will contain two stories with mezzanines located above
the first story and bedrooms and baths located on the second story. The floor plans
feature an open living room, dining room, and a kitchen along with a half-bath and
mezzanine on the first floor. The second floor features two bedrooms and roof terraces.
Planning Commission Action
On October 16, 2002 the Planning Commission denied CUP 02-017 to allow a one-year
extension of the rights granted pursuant to CUP 99-006 that would allow the
construction of a five-unit condominium project at 1719 Ocean Front Walk. The
Planning Commission denied the extension request based on the belief that the
conditions surrounding the project site have changed since the original approval, that
the project’s compatibility with surrounding land uses should be re-analyzed, and that
the demolition of the existing structure would potentially result in the loss of a historic
resource.
Appeal
Pursuant to Section 9.04.20.12.060 (b), an extension of the terms of the CUP may be
granted as long as there is good cause, and upon consideration of the extent to which
the project is consistent with current development standards and policies, whether the
project is consistent in principal with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and
programs specified in the adopted General Plan, conditions surrounding the project site
and whether the project will adversely affect public health, safety and general welfare.
3
The appellant contends that the project is consistent with current development
standards and policies, in that in the time period since the project was originally
approved, there have been no changes in the pertinent development standards or
policies and that the project is still in compliance with the R3R development standards.
The appellant also believes that the project is still consistent in principle with the goals,
objectives, policies, land uses and programs specified in the adopted general plan. To
support these claims, the appellant states that the retention of a residential use on the
subject site is consistent with Land Use Element policies 1.5.2 and 1.5.8 which seek to
conserve the existing mix of residential land uses. Furthermore, the appellant believes
that the proposed project is consistent with the intent of the R3R zoning district, which is
to provide a broad range of housing within medium density residential neighborhoods.
Analysis
Members of the Planning Commission believed that the existing structure is a potential
historic resource. However, staff notes that the existing structure is not listed on the
historic resources inventory. Further, the Landmarks Commission, at its May 13, 2002
hearing, considered the demolition permit but did not take any action to preserve the
structure. Regarding the Commission’s concerns that the conditions surrounding the
project site have changed, staff acknowledges that there have been a number of public
improvements along Ocean Front Walk that have enhanced pedestrian interaction, that
the Le Merigot Hotel is now operational, and that the Sea Castle is occupied. However,
staff does not view these changes as significant enough to determine that the proposed
project would not be compatible with the existing neighborhood and surrounding land
4
uses.
Staff believes the project to be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses
and programs specified in the adopted General Plan. Specifically, the project is
consistent with Land Use Element policies 1.5.2 and 1.5.8, which seek to preserve the
residential mix of residential land uses, and that the project complies with the floor area
ratio and number of stories as set forth in policy 1.5.8. Staff also finds that the project
would not adversely affect public health, safety and general welfare in the
neighborhood.
CEQA ANALYSIS
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Class 3(b)
of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the project involves the construction of
not more than six dwelling units in an urbanized area.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Sections 9.04.20.22.050 and 9.20.14.010, notice of the
public hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of
property located within a 500-foot radius of the project at least ten consecutive calendar
days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment D.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
5
CONCLUSION
The proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP 02-017) would extend the rights granted by
CUP 99-006 until June 24, 2003, one year from the date that the permit was set to
expire. The extension would allow sufficient time to finalize the plan check process
required for building permit issuance and additional time to complete California Coastal
Commission approval. The project has not been revised since its original approval
except as required by the Architectural Review Board and complies with all applicable
development standards.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council take the following action:
1) Uphold the appeal and approve CUP 02-017 to allow a one-year extension of
CUP 99-006 and to amend condition of approval number 38 associated with
that prior entitlement, based upon the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
EXTENSION FINDINGS
1. The applicant has good cause in requesting a one-year extension, in that the
applicant is still in the process of obtaining approval from the California Coastal
Commission and the necessary building permits to commence construction. The
project has ARB approval, but needs more time to complete the plan check
process that is necessary to obtain building permits.
2. The project is consistent with current development standards and policies, in that
in the time period since the project was originally approved on June 9, 1999 there
have been no changes in the pertinent development standards or policies. The
project is still in compliance with the R3R development standards and land use
policies for the Oceanfront District.
3. The project is consistent in principal with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses
and programs specified in the adopted general plan, in that the project retains a
6
residential use on the site, consistent with Land Use Element policies 1.5.2 and
1.5.8 which seek to conserve the existing mix of residential land uses. The
project is a multi-family condominium project that complies with the floor area
ratio and number of stories (2) as set forth in Policy 1.5.8. Furthermore, the
project conforms to the property development standards and is consistent with
the intent and specified land uses of the R3R zoning district, which is to “provide
a broad range of housing within medium density residential neighborhoods”.
4. No changes in conditions surrounding the project site have occurred that alters
the project’s compatibility with adjacent development or the neighborhood. The
conditions surrounding the project site have not significantly changed since the
project’s original approval. A variety of uses, with varying densities and bulk, and
architectural styles are prevalent in the neighborhood. Due to this variety, the
condominium project, which represents a decrease in massing and density on
the subject site, is compatible with the general vicinity and will not pose a
significant impact upon surrounding land uses nor upon the public health, safety
and general welfare in the neighborhood.
5. The project will not adversely effect public health, safety and general welfare, in
that the subject site is located in an urbanized area adequately served by existing
police, fire and public infrastructure. Additionally, on-site access and parking will
be improved in that the proposed condominium project represents a decrease in
density from thirteen units to five units and compliance with current parking
standards.
CONDITION
38. This determination shall not become effective for a period of fourteen days from
the date of determination (CUP). If appealed, a final determination is effective on
the date the appeal decision is rendered. Any appeal must be made in the form
required by the Zoning Administrator. The approval of this permit shall expire on
June 24, 2003, without exception, if the rights granted are not exercised within
this timeframe. Exercise of rights shall mean issuance of a building permit to
commence construction. However, the permit shall also expire if the building
permit expires, if final inspection is not completed or a Certificate of Occupancy is
not issued withintwo years, or if the rights granted are not exercised within one
year following the earliest to occur of the following: issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy or, if no certificate of Occupancy is required, the last required final
inspection for the new construction.
7
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Jonathan R. Lait, AICP, Senior Planner
Bradley J. Misner, AICP, Associate Planner
City Planning Division
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachments: A. Appeal Statement
B. Planning Commission staff report dated June 9, 1999
C. Planning Commission staff report dated October 16, 2002
D. Public Notice
E. Planning Commission Minutes, dated 10/16/02
F. Architectural Plans
BJM
F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\STRPT\2002\Appeal 02CUP017.doc
July 5, 2007
8
ATTACHMENT A
APPEAL STATEMENT
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for
review at the City Clerk’s Office and the Libraries.
9
ATTACHMENT B
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED JUNE 9, 1999
10
CP:JT:SHK:JM:f:\plan\share\pc\strpt\99cup006.doc Santa Monica, California
Planning Commission Mtg: June 9, 1999
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit 99-006 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 52838
Address: 1719 Ocean Front Walk/R3R, Beach Overlay
Applicant: Howard Laks Associates Architects
INTRODUCTION
Action: Application for Conditional Use Permit 99-006 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map
52838 to allow the construction of atwo-story plus mezzanines, 5-unit condominium
development with 11 subterranean parking spaces. As conditioned, the project meets all
applicable development standards.
Recommendation: Approval with conditions.
Permit Streamlining Expiration Date: Conditional Use Permit 99-006: August 8, 1999
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 52838: June 1, 1999;
(extension requested by applicant to June 9, 1999.)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property consists of an 80’ x 125’ lot located in the R3R, Medium Density
Multiple Family Coastal Residential and the Beach Overlay District. The site situated at
the southern end of a block containing all through lots and is bordered by three right-of-
ways: Marine Terrace on the south, Appian Way on the east and Ocean Front Walk on
the west. The subject property contains a 13-unit multi-family structure with a detached
one-story garage in the rear. The units are vacant. The garage and seven parking
spaces are accessed directly from Appian Way.
The adjacent property to the north contains a small one-story commercial shop for
rental bike and skates that caters to pedestrian visitors along Ocean Front Walk. Open
space associated with the Loew’s Hotel is located adjacent to the north between the
commercial use and Pacific Terrace. To the south (R3R), the 178-unit Sea Castle
apartment project is under construction. On the southeast corner of Marine Terrace and
Appian Way (RVC), the Le Merigot Hotel is under construction. South of the Le Merigot
Hotel, an 11-unit condominium project is proposed on a vacant parcel. The Loew’s
Hotel is located directly east of the subject property, across Appian Way. The beach is
located directly west of the property
11
Zoning District: R3R/Medium Density Multiple Family Coastal Residential
District Beach Overly District
Land Use District: Medium Density Housing
Parcel Area: 80.11' x 125' = 10,013.75 sq. ft.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proposed is the construction of a two-story, 30'-0" tall, five-unit condominium building
with an 11 space subterranean parking garage accessed fromMarine Terrace. The
floor area for the five units will total 9,924 square feet of livable space. Each unit will
contain two stories with mezzanines located above the first story and bedrooms and
baths located on the second story. The floor plans feature an open living room, dining
room, and a kitchen along with a half-bath and mezzanine on the first floor. The second
floor features two bedrooms and roof terraces.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Municipal Code and the
General Plan as shown in Attachment A.
CEQA STATUS
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Class 3(b)
of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the project involves the construction of
not more than six dwelling units in an urbanized area.
RENT CONTROL STATUS
The property contains a multi-family structure with 13 rent controlled units. The rent
control status form dated 2/14/99 states that the 13 units are pending an Ellis
Application. The 13 units are vacant.
FEES
The project is subject to:
?
Parks and Recreation Facilities Tax of $200 per unit for a total of $1,000.00.
?
Condominium Facilities Tax of $1,000 per saleable unit for a total tax of $5,000.00.
?
Inclusionary fee of $7.13 per square foot of floor area (9,924 SF) for a total
$70,758.12
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.20.080, within 30 days after the subject
application was deemed complete, the applicant posted a sign on the property stating
12
the following information: Project case number, brief project description, name and
telephone number of applicant, site address, date, timeand location of public hearing,
and the City Planning Division phone number. It is the applicant's responsibility to
update the hearing date if it is changed after posting.
In addition, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, notice of the public
hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property
located within a 500 foot radius of the project and published in The Argonaut at least ten
consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is contained in
Attachment B.
ANALYSIS
Background
The subject property contains a multifamily building. The front section of the building is
vacant and consists of seven dwelling units ranging from 1 to 3 bedrooms. The rear
portion of the building is also vacant and contains six single units. The property is
pending a reoccupancy permit to allow one owner and his relatives to temporarily dwell
in four of the thirteen units.
The structure was built in 1927 and added to in 1940, but is not listed on the Santa
Monica Historic Resources Inventory. Since the structure is more than 50 years old, the
Demolition Permit must be reviewed by the Landmarks Commission. The building is
pending an Ellis Application to remove thirteen dwelling units from Santa Monica Rent
Control via the Ellis Act and cannot be demolished without an approved replacement
project in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.10.16.010(a)(2).
There are three mature Washingtonia Robusta trees on site that will be retained. One
tree, not identified on the plans, is not of mature size and will be removed.
Project Description
Proposed is the construction of a modern two-story, 30’ tall, five-unit condominium
project. Four of the condominiums will be attached and sited on the land in an “L”
formation. The fifth rear unit will be detached. The placement of the fifth unit and the
slightly angular siting of the four attached units will create open space in an interior
courtyard with a curved walkway. All of front entrances to the condominium will be
oriented toward the courtyard. Each condominium is designed in a townhouse style with
living and kitchen area on the first floor, bedrooms located on the second floor and large
terraces on the roof. Mezzanines overlooking the living room and kitchen area are
proposed in each unit. The following interior layouts are proposed:
?
Units 1, 2, and 5:
First floor: large open area with a living and dining room,
kitchen, ½ bath and mezzanine. Second floor: 2 bedrooms and 2 full
baths.
13
?
Units 3, and 4:
First floor: large open area with a living and family room,
kitchen, ½ bath and mezzanine Second floor: 2 bedrooms and 2 full
baths.
The bedrooms located in Units 3 and 4 will be located on split-levels. The master
bedroom in each of these units will be located a few stairs above the second bedroom
and will have direct access to a small roof terrace located above the second bedroom.
Each unit will have a large terrace on their main roof. All of the units will have direct
interior access to the subterranean garage through a set of stairs located in the foyers.
Mechanical rooms will be provided in the subterranean garage and on the roofs,
screened by parapet enclosures.
Private Open Space and Site Landscaping
The private open space proposed exceeds the area required by Code. The integration
of private ground level space and two levels of terraces will provide well over 100
square feet of private open space for each unit. Eighty-four percent of the required front
yard will be landscaped, which exceeds the 50% required by Code. Fifty-eight percent
of the south side yard and 72% of the north side yard will be landscaped. Both exceed
the 50% required by Code. In addition, 4-foot unexcavated sideyards will be provided
along the north and south property lines. Detailed landscaping plans will be subject to
Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval.
Parking and Circulation
Two parking spaces are provided for each unit within the subterranean garage which is
accessed from Marine Terrace. The proposed project includes one guest space in
addition to the ten (10) required parking spaces for a total of 11 spaces. The parking
spaces will be grouped in two’s and separated by individual mechanical rooms.
Pedestrian access to the subterranean parking garage is provided by private stairwells
from the individual units and through secondary stairs accessed from the front yard
along Appian Way and the side yard along Marine Terrace. The proposed side stairwell
is not permitted within the 4’ unexcavated side yard and will need to be relocated. The
applicant has been advised to relocate the stairs and is in full agreement. Staff has
included a condition to address this issue prior to Architectural Review Board submittal
(Condition #35). The Parking and Traffic Division approved the size and configuration
of the parking stalls on May 24, 1999.
Affordable Housing Obligation
The project is subject to the City's Affordable Housing Production Program which
requires a 5-unit development to comply with one of the following:
1) provide either one very low income affordable unit or one low income affordable unit
on-site (Section 9.56.050);
2) provide the affordable unit(s) off-site (Section 9.56.060);
3) pay an affordable housing fee (Section 9.56.070);
14
4) or acquire land for affordable housing (Section 9.56.080).
The developer has elected to satisfy the Affordable Housing Production requirement
through payment of an affordable housing fee. The project's affordable housing fee,
calculated based on a 9,924 square foot project would be $70,758.12. ($7.13 x 9,924
s.f.). This fee will be recalculated prior to payment based on the actual floor area of the
project as constructed. The housing fee must be paid prior to occupancy.
Neighborhood Compatibility
The proposed 5-unit condominium project is compatible with the neighborhood in terms
of density and use. The maximum density permitted by right on the subject property is
eight units. The surrounding uses in the neighborhood include a mix of apartment
buildings, single family houses, multi-story hotels and beach uses located in the R3R,
R3, RVC and BPD Districts. Hotels and apartments line the east side of Appian Way. A
few Craftsman style and older single and multifamily structures exist just east of the
developments between Appian Way and Ocean Avenue on Seaview Terrace. The
proposed design and density of the project will blend well with the various uses and mix
of architectural styles in the area and will reduce the intensity of use and massing on the
property. Parking that complies with current code will be provided, lessening any vehicle
impact in the area. The project will also have ample private open space, landscaping
and articulation.
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed condominium, as conditioned, complies with all applicable provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. The proposed design and use is
compatible with the existing development in the general area. It is recommended that
the Planning Commission approve the project with the following findings and conditions:
15
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision, together with its provision for its design and
improvements, is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as
adopted by the City of Santa Monica, in that the project conforms to the
provisions of the R3R, Medium Density Multiple Family Coastal Residential
District, development standards of the Zoning Ordinance and the Medium
Density Housing Multi-family Residential Section of the Land Use Element of 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
10,013.75 square foot lot in the R3R District can accommodate up to 8 units and
that the 9880 square foot project represents a .99 floor area ratio (FAR), which is
just under the maximum 1.0 FAR permitted for the site.
4. The design of the five-unit condominium will not cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, in that
the proposed development is an infill of urban land and does not currently
support fish or significant wildlife.
5. The design of the five-unit condominium project will not cause serious public
health problems, in that the proposed development complies with the provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan.
6. The design of the five-unit condominium project will not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the
proposed subdivision, in that no such easements exist on the subject site and the
property has vehicular and pedestrian access from Marine Terrace.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The proposed use is one conditionally permitted within the subject district and
complies with all of the applicable provisions of the "City of Santa Monica
Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance", in that the proposed
condominium complies with the R3R District Development Standards of the
Zoning Ordinance and the Medium Density Housing Multi-family Residential
Section of the Land Use Element of 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 the 5-unit project is consistent with
the medium density district and proposes to replace an existing nonconforming
13-unit structure. The design will be harmonious with the various multi-family,
hotels, and commercial uses in the surrounding areas including the 8-story
Seacastle Apartments to the south, the one story commercial use to the north,
16
open space associated with the Loew’s Hotel to the east, and the beach area to
the west and the mix of older, low scale, residential uses.
3. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed,
in that the property is currently developed for residential purposes and has all
necessary public improvements and access to utilities.
4. The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses presently on the
subject parcel if the present land uses are to remain, in that all existing on-site
uses are to be removed and the proposed use is consistent with the previous
residential use of the site.
5. The proposed use is be compatible with existing and permissible land uses within
the district and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located, in
that the two story 5-unit project will provide a lower density residential use along
Ocean Front Walk, and is compatible with the 8-story residential use to the south
(Seacastle Apartments), the one story commercial use to the north, the Loew’s
Hotel open space to the east, the beach open space to the west as well as with
the mix of older, low scale, residential uses in the area. In addition, the proposed
use will comply with all applicable Code requirements.
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 infill of urban land
adequately served by existing infrastructure.
7. Public access to the proposed use will be adequate, in that the site is adequately
served by existing streets and alleys.
8. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with and
relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood, in that all setbacks and
height requirements for the R3R District have been met and the building design
is of a scale compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, lot
coverage complies with Code requirements and landscaping exceeds the
minimum required by Code.
9. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
General Plan, in that the area is defined as a multi-family residential area in the
Land Use Element of the General Plan. Specifically, the project meets Land Use
Element Policy 1.10.1, which encourages the development of new housing in all
existing residential districts, while still protecting the character and scale of
neighborhoods.
10. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or general welfare, in that the project is an appropriate and
compatible use in the R3R District and complies with the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance and the General Plan.
17
11. The proposed use conforms precisely to the applicable performance standards
contained in Subchapter 9.04.12 and special conditions outlined in Subchapter
9.04.14 of the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning
Ordinance, in that the condominium development does not contain any of the
special features described in the aforementioned Subchapters and,therefore, the
Performance Standards and Special Conditions relating to those features do not
apply to the development.
12. The proposed use will not result in an over-concentration of such uses in the
immediate vicinity, in that the area is defined as a multi-family residential district,
and the project complies with the unit per acre density limitations set in the Land
Use Element of the General Plan.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS
Plans
1. This approval is for those plans datedMay 21, 1999; 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 Chapter 1, Article IX of the
Municipal Code, (Zoning Ordinance) and all other pertinent ordinances and
General Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica.
3. Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Parking and Traffic Engineer.
4. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of
Planning. A significant change in the approved concept shall be subject to
Planning Commission Review. Construction shall be in conformance with the
plans submitted or as modified by the Planning Commission, Architectural
Review Board or Director of Planning.
Architectural Review Board
5. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attentions to
the articulation and scale of the project to ensure the design is compatible with
surrounding properties and neighborhood.
6. Prior to consideration of the project by the Architectural Review Board, the
applicant shall review disabled access requirements with the Building and Safety
Division and make any necessary changes in the project design to achieve
compliance with such requirements. The Architectural Review Board, in its
review, shall pay particular attention to the aesthetic, landscaping, and setback
18
impacts of any ramps or other features necessitated by accessibility
requirements.
7. Prior to submittal of landscape plans for Architectural Review Board approval, the
applicant shall contact the Department of Environmental and Public Works
Management regarding urban runoff plans and calculations.
8. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, and trash enclosures shall be
subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Board.
9. 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.
10. Construction period signage shall be subject to the approval of the Architectural
Review Board.
11. Landscaping plans shall comply with Part 9.04.10.04 (Landscaping Standards) of
the Zoning Ordinance including use of water-conserving landscaping materials,
landscape maintenance and other standards contained in that Part.
12. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall screened in
accordance with SMMC Section 9.04.10.02.130-9.04.10.02.151. 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. Any rooftop mechanical equipment
shall be minimized in height and area, and shall be located in such a way as to
minimize noise and visual impacts to surrounding properties. Unless otherwise
approved by the Architectural Review Board, rooftop mechanical equipment shall
be located at least five feet from the edge of the roof. Except for solar hot water
heaters, no residential water heaters shall be located on the roof (unless located
within a mechanical room).
13. No gas or electric meters shall be located within the required front or street side
yard setback areas. The Architectural Review Board in its review shall pay
particular attention to the location and screening of such meters.
14. The location of mechanical units shall be sited on a preliminary plan prior to filing
an ARB application so the Board may review, if necessary, any screening that
may be required.
Fees
15. 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 6.80.010 et seq. of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
19
Demolition
16. The existing site shall be maintained and secured by erecting a security fence,
and removing all debris, bushes and planting that inhibit the easy surveillance of
the property to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Officer and the Fire
Department. Any landscaping material remaining shall be watered and
maintained until demolition occurs. The lot shall be kept clear of all trash, weeds,
etc.
Construction
17. Unless otherwise approved by the Department of Environmental and Public
Works Management, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable during the
grading and construction phase of the project.
18. Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need replacing or removal
as a result of the project as determined by the Department of Environmental and
Public Works Management shall be reconstructed to the satisfaction of the De-
partment of Environmental and Public Works Management. Approval for this
work shall be obtained from the Department of Environmental and Public Works
Management prior to issuance of the building permits.
19. Vehicles hauling dirt or other construction debris from the site shall cover any
open load with a tarpaulin or other secure covering to minimize dust emissions.
20. 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 Community and Cultural Services Department and the Department of
Environmental and Public Works Management. No street tree shall be removed
without the approval of the Community and Cultural Services Department.
21. A construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by the applicant for
approval by the Department of Environmental and Public Works Management
prior to issuance of a building permit. The approved mitigation plan shall be
posted on the site for the duration of the project construction and shall be
produced upon request. As applicable, this plan shall 1) Specify the names,
addresses, telephone numbers and business license numbers of all contractors
and subcontractors as well as the developer and architect; 2) Describe how
demolition of any existing structures is to be accomplished; 3) Indicate where any
cranes are to be located for erection/construction; 4) Describe how much of the
public street, alleyway, or sidewalk is proposed to be used in conjunction with
construction; 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 dewatering
and its effect on any adjacent buildings; 8) Describe anticipated construction-
related truck routes, number of truck trips, hours of hauling and parking location;
9) Specify the nature and extent of any helicopter hauling; 10) State whether any
20
construction activity beyond normally permitted hours is proposed; 11) Describe
any proposed construction noise mitigation measures; 12) Describe construction-
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.
22. The property owner shall insure any graffiti on the site is promptly removed
through compliance with the City's graffiti removal program.
23. A sign shall be posted on the property in a manner consistent with the public
hearing sign requirements which shall identify the address and phone number of
the owner and/or applicant for the purposes of responding to questions and
complaints during the construction period. Said sign shall also indicate the hours
of permissible construction work.
24. A copy of these conditions shall be posted in an easily visible and accessible
location at all times during construction at the project site. The pages shall be
laminated or otherwise protected to ensure durability of the copy.
Environmental Mitigation
25. 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.)
26. Parking areas and structures and other facilities generating wastewater with
significant oil and grease content are required to pretreat these wastes before
discharging to the City sewer or storm drain system. Pretreatment will require
that a clarifier or oil/water separator be installed and maintained on site. In cases
where settleable solids are present (or expected) in greater amounts than
floatable oil and grease, a clarifier unit will be required. In cases where the
opposite waste characteristics are present, an oil/water separator with automatic
oil draw-off will be required instead. The Environmental and Public Works
Management Department will set specific requirements. Building Permit plans
shall show the required installation.
Miscellaneous CUP Conditions
27. The building address shall be painted on the roof of the building and shall
measure four feet by eight feet (32 square feet)
28. 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
significance of the survey findings and appropriate actions and requirements, if
any, to address such findings.
21
29. 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 Environmental and Public Works Management.
30. No fence, gate, or wall within the required front yard setback, inclusive of any
subterranean garage slab and fencing, gate, or railing on top thereof, shall
exceed a height of 42" above actual grade of the property.
31. A security gate shall be provided across the opening to the subterranean garage.
If any guest parking space is located in the subterranean garage, the security
gate shall be equipped with an electronic or other system which will open the
gate to provide visitors with vehicular access to the garage without leaving their
vehicles. The security gate shall receive approval of the Police and Fire
Departments prior to issuance of a building permit.
32. Mechanical equipment shall not be located on the side of any building which is
adjacent to a residential building on the adjoining lot. Roof locations may be
used when the mechanical equipment is installed within a soundrated parapet
enclosure.
33. Final approval of any mechanical equipment installation will require a noise test
in compliance with SMMC Section 4.12.040. Equipment for the test shall be
provided by the owner or contractor and the test shall be conducted by the owner
or contractor. A copy of the noise test results on mechanical equipment shall be
submitted to the Community Noise Officer for review to ensure that noise levels
do not exceed maximum allowable levels for the applicable noise zone.
34. Final building plans submitted for approval of a building permit shall include on
the plans a list of all permanent mechanical equipment to be placed indoors
which may be heard outdoors.
35. As per S.M.M.C. Section 9.04.10.02.170, with the exception of driveways
necessary to provide access to parking, no subterranean parking structures,
including stairs to such structures shall be located in any required unexcavated
area. The proposed side stairwell as shown on plans dated 5/24/99 must be
relocated to comply with Code prior to Architectural Review Board submittal.
Validity of Permits
36. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval
of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy
shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied.
37. Within ten days of City Planning Division transmittal of the Statement of Official
Action, project applicant shall sign and return a copy of the Statement of Official
Action prepared by the City Planning Division, agreeing to the Conditions of
approval and acknowledging that failure to comply with such conditions shall
22
constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval. By signing
same, applicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights applicant may possess
regarding said conditions. The signed Statement shall be returned to the City
Planning Division. Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute grounds
for potential permit revocation.
38. This determination shall not become effective for a period of fourteen days from
the date of determination (CUP) and ten days from the date of determination
(VTTM). If appealed, a final determination is effective on the date the appeal
decision is rendered. Any appeal must be made in the form required by the
Zoning Administrator. The approval of this permit shall expire if the rights
granted are not exercised within two years from the permit’s effective date.
Exercise of rights shall mean issuance of a building permit to commence
construction. However, the permit shall also expire if the building permit expires,
if final inspection is not completed or a Certificate of Occupancy is not issued
withintwo years, or if the rights granted are not exercised within one year
following the earliest to occur of the following: issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy or, if no certificate of Occupancy is required, the last required final
inspection for the new construction. A one year extension may be permitted if
approved by the Director of Planning. Applicant is on notice that time extensions
may not be granted if development standards relevant to the project have
changed since project approval.
39. Within thirty (30) days after final approval of the project, a sign shall be posted on
site stating the date and nature of the approval. The sign shall be posted in
accordance with the Zoning Administrator guidelines and shall remain in place
until a building permit is issued for the project. The sign shall be removed
promptly when a building permit is issued for the project or upon expiration of the
Conditional Use Permit.
Affordable Housing Obligation
40. Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter 9.56, the project is
subject to the City's Affordable Housing Production Program which requires a
five-unit development to provide either one very low income affordable units or
one low income affordable units on-site (SMMC Section 9.56.050), provide the
affordable units off-site (SMMC Section 9.56.060), pay an affordable housing fee
(SMMC Section 9.56.070), acquire land for affordable housing (SMMC Section
9.56.080). The developer has elected to satisfy the Affordable Housing
Production requirement through payment of an affordable housing fee. The
project's affordable housing fee is bases on the following formula:
Floor Area (as defined by SMMC Section 9.04.02.030.315) x $7.13. The
,
project’s floor area as shown on the plans dated May 241999 is 9,924
square feet. The project’s affordable housing fee based on this floor area
23
would be $70,758.12. The fee will be recalculated prior to payment based
on the actual building floor area of the project as constructed. The fee must
be paid in full prior to the City granting any approval for the occupancy of the
project.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CONDITIONS
1. All off site improvements required by the City Engineer shall be installed. Plans
and specifications for off site improvements shall be prepared by a registered
civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer.
2. A subdivision improvement agreement for all off site improvements required by
the City Engineer shall be prepared and a performance bond posted through the
City Attorney's office.
3. The tentative map shall expire 24 months after approval, except as provided in
the provisions of California Government Code Section 66452.6 and Sections
9.04.16.030(e) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. During this time period the
final map shall be presented to the City of Santa Monica for approval. No
building permit for the project will be granted until such time as the final map is
approved by the Santa Monica City Council.
4. In submitting required materials to the Santa Monica Engineering Division for a
final map, applicant shall provide a copy of the approved Statement of Official
Action.
5. Prior to approval of the final map, Condominium Association By-Laws (if
applicable) and a Declaration of CC & R's shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Attorney. The CC & R's shall contain a non-discrimination clause as
presented in Section 9.20.20.020 (SMMC) and in the case of condominiums,
contain such provisions as are required by Section 9.04.16.030(e)(SMMC).
6. The developer shall provide for payment of a Condominium Tax of $1,000 per
saleable residential unit per the provisions of Section 6.76.010 et seq. of the
Santa Monica Municipal Code.
7. The form, contents, accompanying data, and filing of the final subdivision map
shall conform to the provisions of Sections 9.20.12.010 through 9.20.08.090
(SMMC) and the Subdivision Map Act. The required Final Map filing fee shall be
paid prior to scheduling of the Final Map for City Council approval.
8. The form, contents, accompanying data, and filing of the final parcel map shall
conform to the provisions of Sections 9.20.12.010 through 9.20.12.080 (SMMC)
and the Subdivision Map Act.
9. One Mylar and one blue-line copy of the final map shall be provided to and
recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder prior to issuance of any building
24
permit for a condominium project pursuant to Government Code Section
66499.30. Applicant shall also provide the County with a copy of this Statement
of Official Action at the time the required copies of the map are submitted.
10. A copy of the recorded map shall be provided to the Planning and Zoning
Division before issuance of a Building permit.
11. Pursuant to Section 9.20.14.070 (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.
Prepared by: Jean M. Moore, Associate Planner
Attachments:
A. Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
B. Notice of Public Hearing
C. Radius and Location Map
D. Photographs of Site and Surrounding Properties
E. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 52838
F.
Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations
25
ATTACHMENT C
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED OCTOBER 16, 2002
26
CP:JT:AS:JL:BJM:f:\plan\share\pc\strpt\02CUP017.doc Santa Monica, California
Planning Commission Mtg: October 16, 2002
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit 02-017 To Allow a One-Year Extension of a
Previously Approved Conditional Use Permit (99CUP006) for a 5-Unit
Development.
Address: 1719 Ocean Front Walk/R3R, Beach Overlay
Applicant: 1719 Ocean Inc.
INTRODUCTION
Action: Application for Conditional Use Permit 02-017 to approve a one-year extension
of Conditional Use Permit 99-006 and to amend condition of approval number 38
associated with that prior entitlement.
Recommendation: Approval with conditions.
Permit Streamlining Expiration Date: October 30, 2002 (without extension)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property consists of an 80’ x 125’ lot located in the R3R, Multiple Family
Coastal District and Beach Overlay Districts. The site is located at the southern end of
a block containing all through lots and is bordered by three public right-of-ways: Marine
Terrace on the south, Appian Way on the east and Ocean Front Walk on the west. The
subject property contains a 13-unit multi-family structure with a detached one-story
garage in the rear. The units are vacant and will be demolished as part of the project.
The adjacent property to the north contains a small one-story business offering bike and
skate rentals that cater to pedestrian visitors along Ocean Front Walk. Open space
associated with the Loew’s Hotel is located adjacent to the north between the
commercial use and Pacific Terrace. To the south (R3R), is the 178-unit Sea Castle
apartment project. On the southeast corner of Marine Terrace and Appian Way (RVC) is
the Le Merigot Hotel. The Loew’s Hotel is located directly east of the subject property,
27
across Appian Way. The beach is located directly west of the property.
Zoning District: R3R/ Medium Density Multiple Family Coastal Residential
District & Beach Overly District
Land Use District: Ocean Front District
Parcel Area: 80.11' x 125' = 10,013.75 sq. ft.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves a request to extend CUP 99-006 by one-year to allow
additional time to gain approval from the California Coastal Commission and to secure
requisite building permits, and to amend condition of approval number 38 to reflect the
revised term of the permit. CUP 99-006 was approved on June 9, 1999 allowing the
construction of a two-story, 30-foot tall, five-unit condominium building with an 11 space
subterranean parking garage accessed fromMarine Terrace. The floor area for the five
units will total 9,924 square feet of livable space. Each unit will contain two stories with
mezzanines located above the first story and bedrooms and baths located on the
second story. The floor plans feature an open living room, dining room, and a kitchen
along with a half-bath and mezzanine on the first floor. The second floor features two
bedrooms and roof terraces.
CEQA STATUS
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Class 3(b)
of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the project involves the construction of
not more than six dwelling units in an urbanized area.
RENT CONTROL STATUS
The property has been withdrawn from the residential rental market pursuant to the Ellis
Act. However, at the time of this report the Rent Control Board is investigating whether
or not the property owner is in violation of the Ellis Act conditions because of alleged
occupancy of some of the units.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.20.080 and in accordance with the posting
requirements set forth by the Zoning Administrator, prior to application filing the
applicant posted a sign on the property regarding the subject application. At least 4
weeks prior to the public hearing date, the applicant submitted a photograph to verify
the site posting and to demonstrate that the sign provides the following information:
Project case number, brief project description, name and telephone number of
applicant, site address, date, time and location of public hearing, and the City Planning
28
Division phone number. A copy of the site posting photograph is contained in
Attachment B. It is the applicant's responsibility to update the hearing date if it is
changed after posting.
In addition, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, notice of the public
hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property
located within a 500 foot radius of the project at least ten consecutive calendar days
prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment C.
The applicant was notified by phone and writing of the subject hearing date on
September 10, 2002 and September 25, 2002, respectively.
ANALYSIS
Background
The Planning Commission approved this project on June 9,1999, the entitlements
granted in CUP 99-006 became effective on June 24, 1999. The original term of the
CUP was for two years (June 24, 2001), however, the project’s rights were not
exercised in this timeframe, due in part to delays from an appeal of the Planning
Commission approval that was eventually withdrawn. This delay resulted in a request
to approve an administrative extension in accordance with SMMC section
9.04.20.12.060. The administrative extension was granted allowing an additional year
(June 24, 2002) to exercise the rights of CUP 99-006. To date, the project has not
obtained approval from the California Coastal Commission nor has the plan check
process been completed. The applicant reports having presented the project to the
Coastal Commission, but has yet to receive approval. Furthermore, the applicant has
noted problems with their geotechnical engineer resulting in additional delays. Although
the plan check process is nearly complete, these outstanding issues preclude issuance
of a building permit and therefore implementation of the CUP. For these reasons the
applicant again seeks another one-year extension in accordance with section
9.04.20.12.060, which allows the Planning Commission to grant any further extensions
if such request is made one-month prior to the permit’s expiration. The applicant
applied for this extension on May 24, 2002, one-month prior to the permit expiration.
The Architectural Review Board (ARB 01-385) approval for the project was received on
April 1, 2002. The Board required design modifications, which have been incorporated
on the plans included in the packet.
Extension Request
CUP 99-006 was approved on June 9, 1999 permitting a two-story plus mezzanine, five-
unit condominium project with eleven subterranean parking spaces. The rights granted
by CUP 99-006 were valid for two-years, however, the applicant was not able to
29
exercise these rights within the two-year timeframe. As a result a one-year
administrative extension was requested and received on the basis that the pertinent
development standards had not changed and that the conditions of approval were still
valid. However, the administrative extension has also expired. Prior to expiration, the
applicant filed the subject CUP application requesting an additional one-year extension
pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code 9.04.20.12.060 (b). The provisions of this
section allow the Planning Commission to permit further extensions as long as the
request is filed at least one-month prior to the CUP expiration date and as long as the
extension is processed in the same manner as a new CUP. Furthermore, the Planning
Commission may grant the extension based upon good cause and may consider the
extent to which the project is consistent with current development standards and
policies, whether the project is consistent in principal with goals, objectives, policies,
land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan, conditions surrounding
the project site and whether the project will adversely affect public health, safety, and
general welfare.
In accordance with the provisions of this section, the project applicant has filed the
extension request one-month prior to the CUP expiration date and has filed a new CUP
application. Regarding the remainder of the provisions, staff has determined that the
requested time extension is made with good cause because the project applicant was
delayed from applying for Architectural Review Board approval and has been dutifully
processing the project in accordance with the City’s development process but has not
received approval from the California Coastal Commission nor completed the plan
check process. California Coastal Commission approval has been delayed due to the
Commission’s desire to see a visitor-serving commercial development in-lieu of the
proposed residential development and the plan check process has been delayed due to
faulty geotechnical reports prepared by the applicant’s geotechnical consultant. The
project, however, is still in compliance with the property development standards of the
R3R district because these standards have not changed since the Planning
Commission approved the condominium in 1999. The project’s height, bulk, and
setbacks have not changed, with the exception of minor changes undertaken to meet
Architectural Review Board conditions.
The process to approve a condominium project has changed, however, from a CUP
process to the current Design Compatibility Permit (DCP) process, which is based, in
part, on evaluation of the project’s compatibility with surrounding sites and the
neighborhood. In June of 1999, the Planning Commission did undertake this evaluation
in the context of the CUP request and the conclusions regarding this issue remain the
same. This application does not involve any changes to the design of the structure.
The original staff report and the neighborhood compatibility analysis is included as
Attachment A. Furthermore, the resulting process change (CUP to DCP) has not
altered the project’s compliance with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and
programs specified in the adopted General Plan. The project complies with all aspects
of the General Plan in that it conforms to the property development standards and is
consistent with the intent and specified land uses of the R3R district.
30
Concerning the physical conditions surrounding the project site and potential adverse
impacts which affect public health, safety and general welfare, staff has determined that
the conditions have not significantly changed since the project’s original approval. A
variety of uses, with varying densities and bulk, and architectural styles are prevalent in
the neighborhood. Due to this variety, the condominium project, which represents a
decrease in mass and density on the subject site, will not pose a significant impact upon
surrounding land uses nor upon the public health, safety and general welfare in the
immediate vicinity. Lastly, there are no proposed changes regarding additional aspects
of development such as the affordable housing obligation. The developer has elected
to satisfy the Affordable Housing Production requirement through payment of an
affordable housing fee.
Conclusion
The proposed project will extend the rights granted by CUP 99-006 until June 24, 2003,
one year from the date that the permit was set to expire. The extension is requested to
allow additional time to obtain approval from the California Coastal Commission and
required building permits. The project has not been revised except as required by the
Architectural Review Board, since its approval on June 9, 1999 and complies with all
applicable development standards. Furthermore, in the time since the project’s original
approval there have been no changes to the development standards of the R3R zoning
district.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 02-
017, permitting a one-year extension of the rights granted pursuant to Conditional Use
Permit 99-006 and modify Condition #38, based upon the following findings and subject
to the following conditions.
EXTENSION FINDINGS
1. The applicant has good cause in requesting a one-year extension, in that the
applicant is still in the process of obtaining approval from the California Coastal
Commission and the necessary building permits to commence construction. The
project has ARB approval, but needs more time to complete the plan check
process that is necessary to obtain building permits.
2. The project is consistent with current development standards and policies, in that
in the time period since the project was originally approved on June 9, 1999 there
have been no changes in the pertinent development standards or policies. The
project is still in compliance with the R3R development standards and land use
policies for the Oceanfront District.
3. The project is consistent in principal with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses
31
and programs specified in the adopted general plan, in that the project retains a
residential use on the site, consistent with Land Use Element policies 1.5.2 and
1.5.8 which seek to conserve the existing mix of residential land uses. The
project is a multi-family condominium project that complies with the floor area
ratio and number of stories (2) as set forth in Policy 1.5.8. Furthermore, the
project conforms to the property development standards and is consistent with
the intent and specified land uses of the R3R zoning district, which is to “provide
a broad range of housing within medium density residential neighborhoods”.
4. No changes in conditions surrounding the project site have occurred that alters
the project’s compatibility with adjacent development or the neighborhood. The
conditions surrounding the project site have not significantly changed since the
project’s original approval. A variety of uses, with varying densities and bulk, and
architectural styles are prevalent in the neighborhood. Due to this variety, the
condominium project, which represents a decrease in massing and density on
the subject site, is compatible with the general vicinity and will not pose a
significant impact upon surrounding land uses nor upon the public health, safety
and general welfare in the neighborhood.
6. The project will not adversely effect public health, safety and general welfare, in
that the subject site is located in an urbanized area adequately served by existing
police, fire and public infrastructure. Additionally, on-site access and parking will
be improved in that the proposed condominium project represents a decrease in
density from thirteen units to five units and compliance with current parking
standards.
CONDITIONS
38. This determination shall not become effective for a period of fourteen days from
the date of determination (CUP). If appealed, a final determination is effective on
the date the appeal decision is rendered. Any appeal must be made in the form
required by the Zoning Administrator. The approval of this permit shall expire on
June 24, 2003, without exception, if the rights granted are not exercised within
this timeframe. Exercise of rights shall mean issuance of a building permit to
commence construction. However, the permit shall also expire if the building
permit expires, if final inspection is not completed or a Certificate of Occupancy is
not issued withintwo years, or if the rights granted are not exercised within one
year following the earliest to occur of the following: issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy or, if no certificate of Occupancy is required, the last required final
inspection for the new construction.
32
Prepared by: Bradley J. Misner, AICP, Associate Planner
Attachments:
A. Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 9, 1999
B. Notice of Public Hearing
G. Radius and Location Map
H. Photographs of Site and Surrounding Properties
I. Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations
33
ATTACHMENT D
PUBLIC NOTICE
34
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Appeal 02-020
1719 Ocean Front Walk
APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Michael Rahimi
PROPERTY OWNER: 1719 Ocean Inc.
A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request:
Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a Conditional Use Permit 02-017 to
allow an extension of a previously approved Conditional Use Permit (99CUP006) for a
5-Unit condominium development. (Planner: Bradley J. Misner, AICP)
DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2003, AT 6:45 p.m.
LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Room 212, Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California
HOW TO COMMENT
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the City Council public
hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the City Council at the meeting.
Address your letters to: City Clerk
Re: 02APP-020
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project file, please contact Bradley J.
Misner, AICP, at (310) 458-8341, or by e-mail at brad-misner@santa-monica.org. The Zoning Ordinance
is available at the Planning Counter during business hours and on the City’s web site at www.santa-
monica.org.
The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations, please contact (310)
458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance. All written materials are available in
alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10
serve City Hall.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in
Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
ESPAÑOL
Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa
Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la División de Planificación
al número (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
JAY M. TREVINO, AICP
Planning Manager
F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\NOTICES\02APP020.doc
35
ATTACHMENT E
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, DATED 10/16/02
36
M I N U T E S
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WEDNESDAY, October 16, 2002 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M. ROOM 213, CITY HALL
1. CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:14 a.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Commissioner Brown led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ROLL CALL:
Present: Barbara Brown
Darrell Clarke, Chairperson
Arlene Hopkins
Jay P. Johnson
Kelly Olsen
Absent: Julie Lopez Dad
Geraldine Moyle
Also Present: Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP, Associate Planner
Kimberly Christensen, AICP, Senior Planner
Lucy Dyke, Transportation Planning Manager
Kyle Ferstead, Commission Secretary
Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning / PCD
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Senior Planner
Bradley J. Misner, AICP, Associate Planner
Beth Rolandson, AICP, Sr. Transportation Planner
Bill Rodrigues, AICP, Associate Planner
Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
9-B. Conditional Use Permit 02-017, 1719 Ocean Front Walk.
Application for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow a one-year extension of the rights granted
pursuant to CUP 99-006 and to amend condition of approval number 38
associated with CUP 99-006. CUP 99-006 was approved on June 9, 1999
permitting the construction of a two-story plus mezzanine, five-unit condominium
project with eleven parking spaces in a subterranean parking garage. The
proposed CUP extension would allow the rights of CUP 99-017to remain valid
until June 24, 2003. [Planner: Bradley J. Misner, AICP]
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: 1719 Ocean Inc.
37
The Commission began this item by making their ex parte disclosures for this
project. Commissioner Hopkins disclosed that she had received a telephone call
regarding the project and an e-mail which she had forwarded to all the
Commissioners. Chair Clarke disclosed that he was present, as a member of the
public, when the Commission originally approved this project in 1999. There were
no other disclosures made.
Associate Planner Bradley Misner gave the staff report.
Commissioner Olsen asked counsel if the findings for an extension are in the
Code. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum answered in the affirmative and
added that the Commission may grant an extension for good cause.
The applicant’s representative, Rosario Perry, was present to discuss the
extension request.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Perry if the ownership of the property has
changed since 1999. Mr. Perry answered in the negative.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Perry if the Landmarks Commission has
reviewed the buildings currently on the site. Mr. Perry stated that the Landmarks
Commission has not considered this site, but the ARB reviewed the project
numerous times.
Commissioner Hopkins comments on a letter received on the dais from a woman
claiming to be a tenant of the existing Ellised apartment building. Mr. Perry spoke
in response to the letter’s accusations.
Chair Clarke stated for the record that no members of the public submitted
request to speak forms.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum commented that there is an issue with
alleged Ellis Act violations for the building currently on this site and the Rent
Control Board staff is reviewing that issue. He stated that the Rent Control Board
has the authority to nullify the act, however this is not relevant to the current
proceeding.
Commissioner Olsen commented that he has reviewed the Code section
regarding extensions. He stated that this is a de novo hearing and that he can
not review this project at this late hour, therefore he will not support the extension
request.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff what happens if the Commission denies the
request. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that this is simply a
request to extend a previously approved CUP. If the applicant reapplies, it will not
be for a CUP, but rather a Design Compatibility Permit.
38
Commissioner Johnson expressed unease with the Coastal Commission’s desire
for visitor serving/commercial uses and the City’s zoning for housing. Mr. Misner
read from the R3R District section of the Code the types of uses permitted as
follows: bed and breakfast, bike or ski rentals, and residential uses.
Chair Clarke asked if a restaurant would be a permitted use. Mr. Misner stated
that restaurants are not permitted in the R3R District.
Commissioner Brown stated that, as she reads the Code section for extension
requests, the Commission is obligated to hear the request, not go back “to
square one.” She stated that the key word is “process.” Commissioner Brown
stated that she sees no reason to deny the request.
There was discussion regarding differing requirements for residential CUPs
versus Design Compatibility Permits (DCPs). There was also discussion and
interpretation of the Code section governing the request for an extension.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the Landmarks Commission would again review
the project if the applicant reapplies with a new project. Mr. Misner stated that the
Landmarks Commission would only review the existing structures if the
previously approved demolition permit has expired. Mr. Perry stated that the
existing buildings will be reviewed by the Landmarks Commission again when
this extension is granted.
Commissioner Olsen made a motion to deny the extension request.
Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. He stated there are too many
unanswered questions regarding Coastal Commission approval and Ellis Act
issues.
Commissioner Olsen stated for the record that he can not make the findings to
approve the extension request. Commissioner Brown asked Commissioner
Olsen which finding he could not make. He stated he could not make any of the
findings in the affirmative.
The motion to deny the extension of the CUP was approved by the following
vote: AYES: Brown, Clarke, Hopkins, Johnson, Olsen; ABSENT: Dad, Moyle.
39
ATTACHMENT F
ARCHITECTURAL PLANS
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for
review at the City Clerk’s Office and the Libraries.
40