sr-042275-14a^( .Gy
)' / !
T
'd \.
~ CITY OF SANTA MONICA
~~
~~ ~
DATE: April 11, 1975 AFR ~ ~ ~Q?5 '""
T,~s~ ~~ " _.~~.
TO: The City Manager ~?~~ "T~ T;+
~3iY Gt~~K°~ o~~i
~9~ Fif~~:v ~
FROM: The Director of Planning `v }, , ~`~qCS~----..
SUBJECT: Information on Phyllis Worthy Condominium at 1118 Third
Street.
In accordance with your request for information relating
to the approval of a 43 unit condominium development at 1118
Third Street in the R3 District, the following is respectfully
submitted:
An application was filed on September 16, 1974 by Bonner
Development Corporation,. Phyllis Worthy, President, as the
owner and subdivider to develop a six story 43 unit condominium.
on four lots immediately north of the California Federal Savings
building now under construction at the northwest corner of T'aird
and Wilshire.
Tne building meets present and suggested zoning reauire-
ments, provides 118 parking spaces and tras unanimously approved
by the City Planning Commission on October 7, 1974.
Subsequently, on December 27, 1974 the same organization,
Bonner Development Corporation,. headed by Mrs. Worthy, filed an
identical application with an almost identical set of plans for
a four lot site at 1034-1050 Fourth Street. The application was
denied by the City Planning Commission on February 3, 1975 by a
4 to 3 tTote, was appealed to the City Council where it failed to
be approved or disapproved by 3 to 3 vote, and was ruled approved
by the City Attorney by virtue of insufficient findings by the
Planning. Commission.
The two structures are virtually identical in every respect
which emphasizes the major significance relating to the Planning
Commission's opposite treatment of the two projects.
47hereas the Commission obviously was convinced that the
development on Third Street represented an appropriate subdivi-
sion and condominium under the criteria set forth in the City's
Condominium Ordinance, the majority of the Commission four_d that
the identical project at a different location under different
circumstances did not meet those criteria and consequently that
project was denied.
- 1 -
This instance clearly demonstrates the value of the
Planning Commission's consideration and the purpose of sub-
witting condominium projects to the Planning Commission. Two
separate projects, identical in structure, in close proximity
in both time and physical location, are considered by virtually
the same Commission and treated differently because of the dif-
ferent circumstances involved and the Planning Commission's
assessment of and sensitivity to those differences.
Were the Planning Commission not expected to utilize its
judgment in individual applications and make its .decisions on
the basis of the standards and criteria set forth in the Con-
dominium Ordinance and the State l,ap Act, no purpose would be
served by submitting the application to them and the projects
could be approved by staff at considerable savings of time and
energy..
Should you wish additional information regarding either of
these projects, please let me k_noia and we will be happy to
provide it.
JWL:bt
J. W o I,UNS~ QnD
Director o Planning