SR-402-010 (21)
tJ t? 2 --- 0/ 0
CjED:PJS:RM:nh
Counc~l Mtg.: April 24,1984
Santa Monica, Callforn~a
\2 -A
APR 2 4 1984
TO:
Mayor and C~ty Counc~l
FROM:
C~ty Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Plann~ng Comm~ssion Action Approving
Development Review Permit 222 and Condltional
Use Perm~t 363 for a SlX Unlt Condomln~um at
1338 Yale Street.
Introductlon
ThlS is an appeal from a determ~natlon of the Plannlng Commission
on January 30, 1984, to approve wlth condltions an appllcation by
Mr. Ell Shlri for a Development ReVlew Permlt and a Condltlonal
Use Permlt for a SlX unit condominium at 1338 Yale Street. The
appeal 1S by Mr. Charles Hou, an aggrleved party.
Background
On March 24, 1981, the C~ty Councll adopted Resolutlon 6232 approv1ng
Final Subdivislon Tract Map 40301, submltted by Florence Cardlne,
Robert Voas and Carolyn Voas, to develop a Slx-unlt condorninlum
project at the subject locatlon. On Aprll 24, 1981 a stop work
order was issued by the BUllding Department because constructlon
work had not commenced by the effectlve date of the 1981 Moratorlum.
The following February, the owners applied for a Development ReVlew
Permlt WhlCh was subsequently heard by the Planning ComrnlSS1on and
contlnued so the owners could pursue a vested rights determlnatlon.
No further actlons were taken. Throughout the above sequence of
events Mr. Charles C. Hou, appellant in the present matter, ~s
llsted on various appllcatlons forms as "agent" or "representatlve"
of the property owners.
l2-A
AP~ 2 4 1984
Mayor and C~ty Counc1l
-2-
April 24, 1984
On December 30, 1983 E11 Shiri/SNC Development Co., Inc. app11ed
for Development ReV1ew Perm1t 222 to construct six condomin1um
un1ts of a different des1gn and configurat1on on the subject
property, mak1ng use of approved Final Tract Map 40301. On
January 17, 1984 Mr. Sh1r1 also applied for the required Conditional
Use Permit. This latter application 1nd1cates that the property
was in Escrow Account #13274-B as of October 31, 1983. On January
30, 1984 the Planning Comm~SSlon granted the Development Review
Permit and Cond~t1onal Use Perm1t with condit1ons (see attached
Statement of Off~c1al Action) .
In his appeal, Mr. Hou alleges that the Planning Comm1SS1on acted
improperly 1TI approv1ng Mr. Sh1rl's proJect (see attached letter
from appellant's attorney). The appeal questions whether the
current appllcant, Mr. Shlr1, 1S in fact entltled to make use of
rights ~ncorporated in the approved F1nal Tract Map. The appellant
alleges that Mr. Shlri did not obtain approval of a new Tentative
Map for hlS proposed development, but instead was allowed by the
City to use the previously approved F1nal Tract Map which was
orlglnally part of a d1fferent condomln1um project. In the
appeal, 1t is clalmed that Mr. Hou is the "owner" of the approved
Tract Map and did not and does not consent to the use of th1s
Tract Map for Mr. Shiri's project.
Analysis
After review1ng the facts summar1zed above the City Attorney, In
Informal Oplnlon 84-12 (copy attached), states that:
Mayor and Clty Councll
-3-
Apr1l 24, 1984
1. Mr. Rou has filed a proper appeal. Any interested
person may file an appeal from the decision of the
Planning Commlss1on granted a development review
permit and conditional use permit.
2. The dlspute between Mr. Hou and the current owners
of the property lS not relevent to the granting of
the development review permlt and condltional use
permit. The owners of the property are entltled to
seek approval of development of their property. The
dispute between Mr. Hou and the current owners of
the property is clvil In nature. As far as the Clty
is concerned, nothlng prohlblts a property owner
from developing property in accordance with a
previously approved final subdivision map, even
though the final SUbdlvlslon map was secured by a
prev10us owner of the property.
3. Mr. Hou has not presented any lssue that is the
proper concern of the Clty Councll on appeal.
Fl?anClal Impact
The recommendatlon presented in thlS report does not have a
budget/flnanclal lmpact.
Alternatlves
The Clty Caunell may afflrm or reverse the determinatlon of the
Plannlng Commlssion. An action to reverse the determlnatlon of
the Plannlng Comm1SS1on would reqU1re a flnding that the
Commission acted lmproper1y in 1tS approval of Inter1ffi Development
Permit 222 and Cond1tlonal Use Permlt 363.
Recommendat~on
It 15 respectfully recommended that the appeal be denled and the
determlnat10n of the Plannlng Comm1sSl0n be affirmed on the bas1S
that the appeal does not present any issue that 15 the proper
concern of the C1ty Councll on appeal, and that the Plann1ng
Mayor and City Council
-4-
April 24, 1984
Comm~ss~on acted properly in approvlng Development Review Permlt
222 and Conditlonal Use Permlt 363.
Prepared by: Paul J. S~lvern, Acting Plann~ng Director
Richard Mills, Ass~stant Planner
Community and Economic Development Department
Attachments: 1. Plann~ng CommlSSlon Statement of Official
Action on Development Review Perm~t 222
and Condit~onal Use Permit 363.
2. Letter from attorney Sherman Stacey, on
behalf of Charles C. Hau appellent,
dated February 15, 1984.
3. C~ty Attorney Informal Opln~on 84-12.
~-
STATEMEN~ OF OFF:::;~ A:~:OX
?RQJEC':'.
~Tr:!"...EEP
J~ 222, C.C P. 363
LCC-;,r:I:::l, :
1333 Yale S~re;~, ?2
J..PPL:c..ZU.,.':'
S::--l.~l./S~::: ;)e"elc?;re-~
~~
,-".
REC"ES':'.
SlX CL~~ CQrCOrn~~l~'
?UU~r:=NG CJ~!ISS:O~ AC':'ION.
:-30-8';
:lAT:::
xx
Approved basec Q~ t~e =c:lcw~~q f~rd~~gs and
sub}ect to ~~e co~d~~~o~s below
Den~ec.
Other
F!y.;;:r~~GS :
1. rhe development 1.S cons~ste~t Wl.t~ t~e =l.~C~~gs a~c ?urpose
of Ord~~ance 1251.
2. ':'he prcposed plans COIT~lv w~t:. eXl.st~nq =e~~lat~cns con~al.~ed
~~ t~e M~~c~pal Code.
3. T~e eXl.stl.~g and/or p=oposed r~g~ts-of-way for bot:. pedestrl.an
and au~cmo~l:e t~af=~~ W~ll =e ace~~a~e ~c ac~orr~oda~e the
ant~c~?a~ec res~~ts ~= t~e ?r~posec jeve_cp~en~ ~~clud~~g of:-
s~=eet ?a=~~=g =ac~l~~~~s a~c access ~here~=.
4 ~~e ex~st~~~ anc/ar pr~~osec p~-:~c a~d/c= ;r~?a~e ~ea:~h
and sa=ety =ac~l~t~es {~ncl~c~~~, b~~ ~o~ l~~~tec to,
san~~at~o~, sewers, stc~ d=a~~$f :~~e protec~~o~ asv1=es,
~rotec~~~e se=~~=es, and ~~l~c ut~:~t~es; w~l: ~e a~e~~a~e
~o aC~Qrncdate ~he an~~c~?a~ec =~su:~s of ~he ?ropcsec'
deve:'C?"en-:'4
?he p~opc5ec deve:cp~en~ ~~~_ ~ot p=e:uclce ~~e a=~:~~y c:
the C~~y ~~ acc?~ a =eVl.se~ la~6 use elsren~. :nc:~s~on
~= a o~e ~~~~ de~s~~y ~c~~s e~~~~a:en~ ~c t~e one ~~= 0=
a==orca~:e ~ous~~g ~elr; ;=cv~cec ~5 ~~ s~~sta~~~al
=o~~~~ance W~~~ ?esc:u~~~n 6335.
The p~c9csed ~se and locat~on a=e ~n accorca~ce ~.~~ good
zo~~~g ?rac~~ce, ~n the p~bl~c ~~te~es~ a~c 3ecessar:' ~~a~
su=s~~t~al Jus~~ce ~e do~e~
i ~~e prop8sec use ~s ~~~?at~b:e w~~h ex~st~~~ a~d ?c~e~t~al
uses w~~~~~ the =e~eral a=ea, ~~a~ ~=af=~~ cr ~a=~~~c
=~ngest~~~ w~l: ~O~ resu:~, ~~a~ ~~E ~Ub~lC hea:~3, ;afety
a~d ~e~era~ welfa~e are ?=c~ectec and that ~o ~a~ ~c
ac:a=e~~ ;rcpe~~~es w~:l =esu:t.
C:)!\::~~IOt-:S ;
?:ans =cr =~~al ces~;r a~d _a~Qsca~~~g, 5~a:l be s~=:ec~ ~o
=eV~2W a~c a~orcva: by ~~e A=c~:~=c~u~a: ~e7~e~ 3oa~~.
: proJec~ de5~q~ shall coro?~y W2~t the bU2lG~ng energy
regula~lO~s set forth ~~ ~~e Ca:2=o=~2a A~~2~~strat2ve
~ode, Tltle 24. Part 2, sec~~o~s 2-335l and 2~3352
(Energy Conservat~o~ Sta~dards =0= Ke~ ReSlGe~t~al
3~~ld2~gs), suc~ con=o=ma~ce to be ve=~f2e6 by ~~e
Bu~~d~ng ~~d Safe~y ~2V2S~O~ or~o= tc ~ssuance of a
B"':'J.l.d~nc; Pe~l.'t.
~~~c= amen~~e~~s to ~he ~la~s s~all ~e s~:ec~ to approval
by the V2rector of Plar.ning.
~. Const=~ct2on snal: be 2~ subs~ant~al con=ormance ~lth the
plans 6ubrr-~tted or as mod~=led ~y the ?la~n~ng CO~SS20r.,
Archltectural ReVl~W Board or Dlrector 0: ?lann2ng.
5. The app:2cant shall co~~:v Wlt~ a1: :ecal re~ulrements
regar6~ng prov2s1ons =or the d2sabled.-
6. Pr~or to ~ssuance of a BU11d~ng Per=~t, f~nal parklng lot
layout and spec~flca~~o~s shall be revlewed ~~d approved
~y the ?ark~ng a~c ~ra::~c Ens~~eer.
P=lor to ~ss~a~ce 0= a B~~lc~~g ?e~2t, ~~e ex~st~ng
Cove~an~s, Ccncltior.s and Restr2ct2ons recorded on ~ract
403Cl sha~l ~e ~~nded to 2ncorpo=a~e an ant~-d~sc=~lnat2on
clause app=ovec by the C~ty Attorney
a. The developer sha:l covenant a~d agree W~~~ ~he C2ty
0= Sa~~a MCL~ca ~c tne spec~=~c te~s} cond~t~o~s ~~d
restr~ct~cns ~?on ~e possess~onr use and enJo~a~t of
t~e ~u?Jec~ p=?pe~ty. w~~ch ~e~:, c~~d~~~o~s ~~d =est=~ct1ons
5nal~ ne at~acned to a~a rec~~~e~ as ~a~~ ~= ~~e deecs and
Covenants, Conc2~~o~S a~d Res~r~ct~o~s of 7ract 40301, to
eis~=e ~~a~ one af=crdable ~~~t ~s prov~~ec a~d ~a~~ta~ned
ever ~~me and throu~h subse=uen~ sa:es of the ~ro~ertv.
An a==ordable ~~~t sha:: ~e-de=lned as be~ng a~fordable to
~c";,l.5e::olcs .""..:. -=.h :..nccres no-=. exce-ec...:.~s- :':0 % ~-= -:.he. (i!t,TQ}
Los An~e~es :o~nty ~ed~an ~rco~e,ex?end~~g ~~t ove~ 25% c=
~c~t~ly ~~cc~e O~ ~o~s~~g ccs~s, as 5pec~=leo by tne Santa
~c~~~a Eo~s~ng ~u~~or~~y
~~~5 ag~ee:e~~ s~a:l ~e ~x~c~~ec a~a_~ecor~e~ pr~o= to the
~$suance O~ =~~~a~ncr ~e~n~~s S~ch ~creerent shall spec~fy
... res?ors::..bl.:~tl.es"- o~ t~e de'~e:':;.?e= ~-:J:= ~~a'-':.:.ng the u.=:~~
ava~lab:e ~o ~ote~~la: ~~ve=s and =~crc~~a~~~; t~a~ process
~";.:.tt t.::~ C.:..":.y- c= Santa. \~O;L:::a. :-:~-US1:lg ;'~:':-::~O=-.l-=Yr a:Ic. 2)
~es~ons~=~ll~~es c= the C~~y ~f Sa-~a ~o~~ca to p=epare
afP~~ca~~o~ ~D~S for pote~~~al ~uye~s, esta~:~s~ C~~~2r~a
~o= qual~~~ca~~=~s, re~~~e~ ~?;~~ca~~c-s a~e ;~ov~de el~~~o:e
a??l~=a~~s ~o the cevelc;er, a~d a~fo~~e ~:= prov~s~o~s 0:
-= i.e agre€:r"I en":..
~ .
-~
::a-:.e ..
; L>-;"') i
. ..-
_fo ...- .
!, . ;' /'Sf'
~:J,.J-_ -
r'" ,,.-- -,..."
~._a__::, .50._
).-
,__..<.d~
---
,)pn-P'./
" ,0.-'
STACEY e JONES
ATT01=ii.!NE:OV5 ~":" LAW
'29~ OCE:.<.N Avet-owe
SW"TE: 330
....Re... CODe 213
39.r...lte3
SA"Je^ MO).,;IO, CALlFOR'>:IA 9040]
February 151 1984
D~rector of Plann~ng
C~ty of Santa Mon~ca
1685 Ma~n Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
Re: D.R. 222 and C.U.P. 363
Dear S~r:
On behalf of Charles Hou, I hereby appeal the
dec~sion of the Planning Comm~ssion on January 30,
1984, granting Development ReVlew Perm~t No. 222
and Cond~tlonal Use Permit No. 363 to Ell Sh~ri.
Mr. Shir~ did not obtain any approval of a tentative
tract map for his proposed development. He was
allowed to use Tract Map No. 40301, which was
approved on May 5, 1980 for an ent~rely different
condoffiinilli~ project.
y~. Hou was the applicant for and recipient of
Tract Map No. 40301. y~. Eou pa~d all tentative and
final map fees and is the tlownertt of such map.
~~. Hou did not consent and does not consent to the
use of Tract No. 40301 for ~x. Shlri1s project.
Yrr. BOll received no notice of the Plannlng Commission
hearing on D.R. Permit No. 222 or C.D.P. 363 and did
not become aware of the application unt~l after the
hear~n<;:r.
The lssuance of D.R. Permit No. 222 a.."1d C.D.P. 363
vlthout approval of a new tract map ~s ~mproper.
Very truly yours,
,-- /1' ....Y~/
I ,.L..., /
6....-- , J' ~.....~
SHERMAN L. STACEY
SLS/lc
cc: Mr. Charles Hou
~~~
3/~-
INFORMAL OPINIO~ NUMBER 84-12
.
;
DATED:
March 17, 1984
TO:
Mark Tigan, D~rector of C.E.D.
FROM:
Robert M. Myers, C~ty Attorney
SUBJECT:
Appeal of Development Review Permit Number 222 and
Cond~tiona1 Use Permit Number 363 Relating to
1338 yale Street
By memorandum dated March 12, 1984, you have requested an
op1nion concernlng an appeal flled by Charles Hou from the
approval of a development rev~ew permit and condltional use
permit for 1338 Yale Street. The basis of the appeal is that
~lr. Hou, and not the applicants, 1S the owner of the final
subd~vislon map for the property. Based upon the information
you provlded, the followlng summar1zes our concl'lsions:
1. Any lnterested person may file an appeal from the
decls10n of the P1annlng COMmlSS10n grantlng the developmetn
revlew perMlt and cond1tlonal use permlt. Thus, Mr. Hou has
filed a proper appeal.
2. The dlspute between Mr. Bou and the current owners of
the property 15 not relevant to the granting of the development
review permlt and cond1tlonal use permlt. The owners of the
property are ent1tled to seek approval of development of their
property. The d1spute between Mr. Fou and the current owners of
the property 1S C1Vll in nature. As far as the City lS
concernec, nothlng prohiblts a property Owner from developing
property In accordance with a prevlously approved f1nal
subdlvlsion map, even though the flnal subdivision map was
secured by a previous owner of the property.
3. Since
proper concern
reco~endation
Com~lSS1on.
~r. Hou has not presented any issue that is the
of the Clty Council on appeal, your staff
should be to aff1rm the decislon of the Plannlng
R~M:r
cc: Paul Silvern, Acting Planning D1rector