ITEM 6-C

Council Mtg: October 10, 2000                                                            Santa Monica, California

 

 

TO:                  Mayor and City Council

 

FROM:            City Staff

 

SUBJECT:     Certification of Statement of Official Action for Appeal 00-075 of the Planning Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit 98-047 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 52649 to Allow the Construction of a Ten-Unit Condominium Project with Twenty-two Subterranean Parking Spaces Located at 834-838 Sixteenth Street. 

 

                        Applicant/Appellant: Norman Salter

                

INTRODUCTION

This supplemental staff report transmits for City Council certification the Statement of Official Action for Appeal 00-075 of the Planning Commission=s denial of Conditional Use Permit 98-047 to allow the construction of a ten-unit condominium project with twenty-two subterranean parking spaces accessed from 15th Court Alley. 

 

On August 8, 2000, the Council adopted a motion to deny the appeal and upheld the Planning Commission denial of Conditional Use Permit 98-047 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 52649 based on the findings contained in the attached Statement of Official Action appeal. 

 

BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT

The recommendation presented in this report has no budget or financial impact.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council approve the attached Statement of Official Action.

 

Prepared by:        Suzanne Frick, Director

Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager

Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner

Jean M. Moore, AICP, Associate Planner

Planning and Community Development Department 

 

Attachment:          Statement of Official Action

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL

 

 

STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL

 ACTION

 

 

 

 

 

PROJECT

 

CASE NUMBER:      Conditional Use Permit 98-047 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 52649

 

LOCATION:               834-838 Sixteenth Street

 

APPLICANT:             Norman Salter

 

            APPELLANT:            Norman Salter

 

CASE PLANNER:    Jean M. Moore, AICP, Associate Planner

 

REQUEST:                Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit 98-047 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 52649 to Allow the Construction of a Ten-Unit Condominium Project with Twenty-two Subterranean Parking Spaces Located at 834-838 Sixteenth Street. 

 

CEQA STATUS:                   Planning staff found the project to be categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15332, Class 32, of the State Implementation Guidelines.  However, as detailed below, the City Council finds that the proposed project is inconsistent with the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element and the City’s Housing Element. Consequently, the Class 32 exemption cannot be applied to this project and further  environmental review  would be required before the City could approve the proposed condominium project.

 

 

CITY COUNCIL ACTION

 

August 8, 2000                      Date.

 

                                                Approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions below.

 

          X                                   Denied CUP 98-047; VTTM 52649.

 

                                                Other.

 

 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTION:

 

August 8, 2000

            Following a public hearing held on August 8, 2000, the City Council denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission’s denial of CUP 98-047 and VTTM 52649 based upon the following findings:

 

FINDINGS

 

1.                  The proposed development consists of the construction of a 10-unit condominium project located at 834-838 16th Street.  The project would be constructed on two contiguous lots.

 

2.                  The proposed project developer has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) as well as approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map (“VTTM”).

 

3.                  On July 5, 2000, the Planning Commission voted 5-1 to deny the project.  The applicant appealed this decision on July 13, 2000.

 

3.                  A public hearing on the proposed project was held by the Santa Monica City Council on August 8, 2000, with evidence presented by the proposed project’s developer and interested members of the public.  In addition, City staff submitted a detailed written staff report and accompanying exhibits.

 

4.                  The proposed project’s developer has the burden of providing evidence sufficient to enable the City Council to make the findings required by Section 9.20.14.040 and 9.04.20.12.040.

 

5.                  As reflected in the plans dated 5/2/00, the project would consist of two symmetrical buildings, each with 5 attached townhouse-style condominiums. While the proposed project is technically two stories extending 30 feet in height, it also includes mezzanine levels, 42-inch high parapet walls and ten mechanical room enclosures that would project 9 feet above the flat roofline. Effectively, the proposed structure including its projections would have the same scale and massing as a four-story, 39-foot high building.

 

6.                  Building uses surrounding the proposed project consist of primarily one and two-story residential structures located on one or two lots.

 

7.                  No other building in the vicinity of the proposed project is as large as the project.

 

8.                  At the City Council hearing, the applicant proposed some modifications to the design of the proposed project to the City Council intended to respond to the Planning Commission’s determination that the  proposed project was incompatible with the neighborhood. No formal plans were submitted and neither the Planning Commission nor  City staff had reviewed these proposals.

 

9.                  Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.12.040, the City Council may approve a Conditional Use Permit application in whole or in part, with or without conditions if all the following findings of fact can be made in an affirmative manner:

 

a)        The proposed use is one conditionally permitted within the subject district and complies with all of the applicable provisions of this Chapter. 

 

b)        The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located. 

 

c)         The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed.

 

d)        The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses presently on the subject parcel if the present land uses are to remain. 

 

e)        The proposed use would be compatible with existing and permissible land

        uses within the district and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located.

 

f)           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. 

 

g)        Public access to the proposed use will be adequate.

 

h)         The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood.

 

i)           The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. 

 

j)The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare.

 

k)         The proposed use conforms precisely to the applicable performance standards contained in Subchapter 9.04.12, and Section 9.04.12.010 and the special conditions outlined in Subchapter 9.04.14, Section 9.04.14.010.

 

l)The proposed use will not result in an over concentration of such uses in the immediate vicinity.

 

10.             Based on the evidence  and public testimony presented at the public hearing, the City Council is unable to find in an affirmative manner, as required by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.12.040(b) that “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  proposed condominium would dominate the street and tower over adjoining properties.  The cumulative massing of the proposed project’s two-story buildings, mezzanines, and rooftop mechanical enclosures constructed on two contiguous lots would have the same scale and  impact as a four-story, 39-foot high building.  Yet, this massive development would be located adjacent to existing one and two story buildings in the neighborhood and would be wholly inconsistent with the pedestrian scale of Sixteenth Street.

 

 

11.             Based on the evidence and public testimony presented at the public hearing, the City Council is unable to find in an affirmative manner, as required by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.12.040 (i) that “the proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan,” since the proposed project is inconsistent with the following policies and objectives contained in the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element and its Housing Element:

 

a)        Objective 1.10: “Expand the opportunity for residential land use while protecting the scale and character of existing neighborhoods.”   The proposed project does not protect the scale and character of the existing neighborhood.  Instead, the proposed condominium would dominate the street and tower over adjoining properties.  The cumulative massing of the proposed project’s two-story buildings, mezzanines, and rooftop mechanical enclosures constructed on two contiguous lots would have the same scale and  impact as a four-story, 39-foot high building.  Yet, this massive development would be located adjacent to existing one and two story developments in the neighborhood and would be wholly inconsistent with the pedestrian scale along the Sixteenth Street. In addition, the proposed project provides the minimum required setbacks with no additional setback to provide relief for neighboring sites that are much lower in height and which have minimum side yard setbacks.

 

b)        Objective 1.1:  “Protecting the quality of life in all residential neighborhoods.” For the reasons specified above, the proposed project would diminish the quality of life in this neighborhood.  In addition, the height of the building will block the views and light of adjacent properties and the proposed landscaping and landscaping buffers will not provide sufficient privacy for adjacent neighbors. The livability of the neighborhood will also be diminished by the increased traffic and congestion along 15th Court Alley as well as on 16th Street itself, a street which is already congested with commercial parking from shops and restaurants on Montana Avenue.

 

c)         Objective 1.2: “Ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses, with particular concern for protecting residential neighborhoods.”  This project would not ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses.  As detailed, the project’s height exceeds any of the adjacent properties.  The two story property to the north, located on a half-excavated garage, is the largest in the neighborhood; in contrast, the proposed project, with its mezzanine level and mechanical roof top projections, is 39 feet tall and would have the visual appearance and impact of a four-story building.

 

d)        The City’s Housing Element of the General Plan establishes the following housing policies relevant to this project: “promote quality housing and neighbors”, “promote livability and stability of neighborhoods”, “ensure that residential areas are protected from adverse impacts from adjoining uses”, and “encourage housing design and improvements which are aesthetically compatible with and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood”.  The proposed project would violate each of these policies.  The height and massing of this project would be entirely incompatible with the neighborhood.  It would block neighboring views and light and result in a loss of privacy. The proposed project has not been  designed with features that would tend to mitigate or mask its height and mass and thus allow it to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.  Moreover, the additional traffic in the neighborhood and the traffic congestion in the alley generated by the project  will  serve to reduce the livability of the neighborhood.

 

12.             Based on the evidence and public testimony presented at the public hearing, the City Council is unable to find in an affirmative manner, as required by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.12.040 (j) that “the proposed use would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare.” In addition to the detrimental impacts of the project detailed above, which are  principally  the result of the height and massing of the building,  the garage access on the alley creates a potentially dangerous traffic situation since the alley is already narrow and congested and there are limited setbacks at the rear of adjacent buildings.

 

13.             Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.20.14.040, the City Council shall deny approval of the tentative map if it makes any of the following findings:

 

a)        The proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Government Code Section 65451.

 

b)        The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

 

c)         The site is not physically suitable for the type of development.

 

d)        The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

 

e)        The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

 

f)           The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement is likely to cause serious public health problems.

 

g)        The design of the subdivisions or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.

 

h)         The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with any ordinance or law of the City of Santa Monica.

 

14.       Based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the City Council found, as required by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.20.14.040 (b), that “the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.”   The City of Santa Monica Land Use Element and Housing Element of the General Plan establishes objectives relative to the subject project: 

 

a)     Objective 1.10: “Expand the opportunity for residential land use while protecting the scale and character of existing neighborhoods.”   The proposed project does not protect the scale and character of the existing neighborhood.  Instead, the proposed condominium would dominate the street and tower over adjoining properties.  The cumulative massing of the proposed project’s two-story buildings, mezzanines, and rooftop mechanical enclosures constructed on two contiguous lots would have the same scale and  impact as a four-story, 39-foot high building.  Yet, this massive development would be located adjacent to existing one and two story developments in the neighborhood and would be wholly inconsistent with the pedestrian scale along the Sixteenth Street. In addition, the proposed project provides the minimum required setbacks with no additional setback to provide relief for neighboring sites that are much lower in height and which have minimum side yard setbacks.

 

 

b)     Objective 1.1:  “Protecting the quality of life in all residential neighborhoods.” For the reasons specified above, the proposed project would diminish the quality of life in this neighborhood.  In addition, the height of the building will block the views and light of adjacent properties and the proposed landscaping and landscaping buffers will not provide sufficient privacy for adjacent neighbors. The livability of the neighborhood will also be diminished by the increased traffic and congestion along 15th Court Alley as well as on 16th Street itself, a street which is already congested with commercial parking from shops and restaurants on Montana Avenue.

 

 

c)      Objective 1.2: “Ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses, with particular concern for protecting residential neighborhoods.”  This project would not ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses.  As detailed, the project’s height exceeds any of the adjacent properties.  The two story property to the north, located on a half-excavated garage, is the largest in the neighborhood; in contrast, the proposed project, with its mezzanine level and mechanical roof top projections, is 39 feet tall and would have the visual appearance and impact of a four-story building.

 

 

d)     The City’s Housing Element of the General Plan establishes the following housing policies relevant to this project: “promote quality housing and neighbors”, “promote livability and stability of neighborhoods”, “ensure that residential areas are protected from adverse impacts from adjoining uses”, and “encourage housing design and improvements which are aesthetically compatible with and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood”.  The proposed project would violate each of these policies.  The height and massing of this project would be entirely incompatible with the neighborhood.  It would block neighboring views and light and result in a loss of privacy. The proposed project has not been  designed with features that would tend to mitigate or mask its height and mass and thus allow it to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.  Moreover, the additional traffic in the neighborhood and the traffic congestion in the alley generated by the project  will  serve to reduce the livability of the neighborhood.

 

 

15.             Based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the City Council found, as required by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.20.14.040 (f), that “the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is likely to cause serious public health problems” in that the garage access on the alley which is already narrow, and congested, together with the limited setbacks at the rear of adjacent buildings creates a potentially dangerous traffic situation.   The height of the project will also block light and air circulation to the residential buildings surrounding it.

 

16.             Planning staff concluded that the project was categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15332 (Class 32 In-Fill Development Projects).  However, this exemption is only applicable if the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designations and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.  As detailed in these findings, the proposed project is not consistent with applicable general plan policies and zoning regulations.  Consequently, the City is unable to find that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA on this basis and additional environmental review would be required before the City could approve the proposed condominium project.

 

17.             Government Code Section 65589.5 has no application to this project.  This Section applies, if at all, to charter cities such as the City of Santa Monica to the extent that the City disapproves a housing development project affordable to low and moderate income households.  For all other proposed housing development projects it is within the municipal affairs of the City to determine whether to approve or disapprove the project.  The developer did not present evidence demonstrating that this would be an affordable housing project.

 

18.             As detailed in the findings set forth above, the project would have specific, adverse impacts upon the public health or safety unless this project is disapproved.  Additionally, given the City Council’s determination that the proposed project was contrary to the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element and its Housing Element, the necessary environmental evaluation had not been concluded.   Further, the proposed project required fundamental and substantial redesign.  Consequently, there was no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impact of the project, or otherwise comply with State law, short of the project’s denial.

 

 

VOTE

 

Ayes:          Bloom, Feinstein, Genser,  O’Conner

Nays:          Holbrook, Rosenstein

Abstain:      McKeown

Absent:       None

 

 

NOTICE

 

If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure 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\00APP075.doc