SR-042203-1B
F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\STOAS\02APP020.doc
Council Mtg: April 22, 2003 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Certification of the Statement of Official Action for Appeal 02-020 of the
Planning Commission Denial of a Conditional Use Permit 02CUP017, to
Allow an Extension of a Previously Approved Conditional Use Permit
(99CUP006) for a 5-unit Condominium Development.
INTRODUCTION
This staff report transmits for City Council certification the Statement of Official Action
for Appeal 02-020 of the Planning Commission denial of a Conditional Use Permit
02CUP017 to allow an extension of a previously approved Conditional Use Permit
(99CUP006) for a 5-unit condominium development.
On February 25, 2003 the City Council overturned the decision of the Planning
Commission and approved the appeal by a vote of 5-0. The City Council’s decision was
based upon the findings contained in the attached Statement of Official Action.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Statement of Official
Action.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Jay Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Jonathan R. Lait, AICP Senior Planner
Bradley J. Misner, AICP, Associate Planner
Planning and Community Development
Attachment: Statement of Official Action
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CITY COUNCIL
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL
ACTION
PROJECT
CASE NUMBER: Appeal 02APP-020 of Conditional Use Permit 02-017
LOCATION: 1719 Ocean Front Walk
APPLICANT: 1719 Ocean Inc.
APPELLANT: 1719 Ocean Inc.
PROPERTY
OWNER: 1719 Ocean Inc.
CASE PLANNER: Bradley J. Misner, AICP, Associate Planner
REQUEST: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of
Conditional Use Permit (02CUP017) to allow an extension
of a previously approved Conditional Use Permit
(99CUP006) for a 5-unit condominium development.
CEQA STATUS: The proposed project is statutorily exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(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.
1
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
February 25, 2003 Date.
X Approved based on the following findings and subject to the
condition below.
Denied
______________ Other.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTION:
February 25, 2003
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. Furthermore, the applicant
is involved in litigation with the California Coastal Commission concerning the
Commission’s desire to have a visitor serving use on the subject parcel rather
than a residential use.
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
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”.
2
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. The approval of this permit shall expire on February 25, 2004, 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.
VOTE
Ayes: Bloom, Holbrook, O’Connor, McKeown, Feinstein
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Genser, Katz
3
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica
Comprehensive and Zoning Ordinance, the time within which judicial review of this
decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedures Section 1094.6, which
provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.16.010.
I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final
determination of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica.
_____________________________ _____________________________
MARIA M. STEWART, City Clerk Date
F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\STOAS\02APP020.doc
4