Loading...
CC RESOLUTION 4417RESOLUTION NO. 4417 A RESOLUTION OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION, THEREBY DENYING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. EA -636, SUBDIVISION NO. 04 -02 (VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 60995), AND VARIANCE NO. 04 -01 TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING 35 -UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX TO CONDOMINIUMS AT 910 EAST GRAND AVENUE. The City Council of the City of El Segundo does resolve as follows SECTION 1 The Council finds and declares that A On February 24, 2004, Albert and Madeleine Marco filed an application for Environmental Assessment No EA -636, Subdivision No 04 -02 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No 60995), and Variance No 04 -01 to allow the conversion of a an existing 35 -unit apartment to condominiums at 910 E Grand Avenue, B Albert and Madeleine Marco's application was reviewed by the City's Planning and Budding Safety Department for, in part, consistency with the General Plan and conformity with the ( "ESMC "), C In addition, the City reviewed the project's environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq , "CEQA "), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal Code of Regulations § §15000, et seq , the "CEQA Guidelines "), and the City's Environmental Guidelines (City Council Resolution No 3805, adopted March 16, 1993), D The Planning and Budding Safety Department completed its review and scheduled a public hearing regarding the application before the Planning Commission for October 14, 2004, E On October 14, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the application including, without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by Albert and Madeleine Marco, F After taking information submitted during the October 14, 2004, public hearing the Commission continued the matter until its November 15, 2004 Special Meeting, G On November, 14, 2004, the Commission considered the information provided by City staff, public testimony, and Albert and Madeleine Marco's representatives, and adopted Resolution No 2576 and its findings, which were made based upon the evidence presented to the Commission at its October 14, 2004 and November 15, 2004 hearings including, without limitation, the staff reports submitted by the Planning and Budding Safety Department, H On November 28 and November 29, 2004, the El Segundo Residents Association and Wyle Laboratories Inc filed separate timely appeals of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Environmental Assessment No EA- 636, Subdivision No 04 -02 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No 60995), and Variance No 04 -01, On December 21, 2004, the City Council held a hearing to receive evidence regarding the application including, without limitation information provided to the Planning Commission by Albert and Madeleine Marco, the hearing was continued until February 1, 2005 At that time the public hearing was continued again to March 1, 2005, On March 1, 2005, the City Council considered the information provided by City Staff, public testimony, and Albert and Madeleine Marco's representatives, and closed the public hearing and directed staff to prepare a resolution to deny the project for consideration at the March 15, 2005 Council Meeting SECTION 2 Factual Findings The Council finds that the following facts exist A The subject site is located in the "R -3" Multi- Family Residential Zone, B The surrounding land uses consist of apartments to the north, an active oil well to the south, the Los Angeles County Storm Water Basin to the east, and apartments to the west, C The subject site is a rectangular lot measuring 157 49 feet wide by 220 35 feet deep, totaling 34,702 square feet, D The subject site is currently developed with two buildings, providing thirty-five residential units, E The subject site has vehicular access from a driveway off of Maryland Street at the front of the property, F, The proposed project would consist of the conversion of two existing three -story buildings comprised of 35 apartment units to condominiums, 6 of the units would be combined into three reducing the total number of units to 32 The project would include 20 two- bedroom units and12 one - bedroom units, for a total of 32 units, with 68 enclosed parking spaces, and G The project, as amended by the applicant at the March 1, 2005 Council Meeting includes a variance request to allow 1) lot coverage that exceeds the 40% permitted by 16 9% (per the 1978 Municipal Code), 2) 12 dwelling units (748 square feet each) that do not meet the minimum 1,000 square -foot unit size required (per the 1978 Municipal Code), and 3) substandard parking width for 46 of the 68 parking spaces proposed SECTION 3 Vanance After considering the above facts regarding proposed Environmental Assessment No 636, Subdivision No 04 -02 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No 60995), and Variance No 04 -01, the City Council finds as follows A Environmental Assessment No 636 is hereby denied based upon the fact that the protect does not conform to the zoning standards of the zone as required by the El Segundo Municipal Code as the protect does not comply with the lot coverage, unit size and parking stall requirements of the Code B The variances requested are hereby denied based upon each of the separate and individual findings set forth below 1) There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone The protect site consists of four lots of regular size and shape which have adequate street access In addition, the sloping topography is typical of other properties in the same vicinity and zone The standards being applied to the protect are the same standards that would be applied to other condominium conversion protects for apartments built during the same time period as the apartments on the applicable property There are no extraordinary circumstances that justify a variance for lot coverage, unit size, or parking stall width 2) The variances are not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone and is denied to the property in question since the property was not developed to the zoning code condominium standards at the time of original construction The requested variances for lot coverage, unit size, and parking stall width are not individually or collectively necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone The standards being applied to the project are the same standards that would be applied to other condominium conversion projects for apartments built during the same time period as the apartments on the applicable property The applicant may maintain the existing budding with 35 apartment units, remodel the buildings to conform to the condominium standards in effect at the time of original construction, or rebuild the site with units that conform with today's standards 3) The granting of the variances would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located since the property was not built to the condominium standards in effect at the time of construction Condominium projects constructed at that time were required to comply with more stringent development standards (including lot coverage and unit size) than apartments It would be detrimental to the public welfare to approve variances for lot coverage that exceeds the maximum allowed by 16 9 %, for units that are approximately 25% smaller than the 1,000 square -foot minimum, and for a substandard parking width for 46 of the 68 parking stalls 4) Granting of the variances will adversely affect the General Plan The proposed project is not consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the "R -3" Multi -Family Residential Zone which requires preservation and maintenance of the City's low - medium density residential uses with minimum development standards The project does not meet the minimum development standards for condominiums (for lot coverage, minimum unit size, and parking stall width) at the time of original construction C Subdivision No 04 -02 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No 60995) is hereby denied as the proposed project is not consistent with the applicable zoning standards set forth in the El Segundo Municipal Code as the property does not conform with lot coverage, unit size and parking stall requirements of the Code SECTION 4 This Resolution will remain effective unless superseded by a subsequent resolution SECTION 5 The City Clerk is directed to mad a copy of this to Albert and Madeleine Marco, Wyle Laboratories Inc, and the El Segundo Residents Association (ESRA), and to any other person requesting a copy SECTION 6 This Resolution is the City Council's final decision and will become effective immediately upon adoption PASSED AND ADOPTI APPROVED AS TO FORM Mark D Hensley, Attorney BY Mark K Hensley City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS CITY OF EL SEGUNDO ) I, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City is five, that the foregoing Resolution No 4417 was duly passed and adopted by said City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor of said City, and attested to by the City Clerk of said City, all at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 15th day of March 2005, and the same was so passed and adopted by the following roll call vote AYES: McDowell, Gaines, Boulgaiides, Busch, Jacobson NOES None ABSENT None ABSTAIN None NOT PARTICIPATING None ATTEST �W Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk P \Planning & Building Safety\PROJECTS \626- 650 \Ea - 636 \EA -636 reso cc doc