Council Mtg:
May 20, 2003 June 10,
2003 Santa
Monica, California
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal 03AP-005 of the Landmarks
Commission’s Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness
LC-03-CA-004 Allowing Modifications to the Approved Windows on the Second Floor
of Mariasol Restaurant, 401 Santa Monica Pier. Applicant: Mariasol Restaurant/Camacho, Inc. Appellant: Edward Muzica
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council overturn
the Landmarks Commission’s determination and uphold in part the appeal to allow
window modifications to Mariasol Restaurant on the Santa Monica Pier. The staff recommendation would require
replacement of the windows on the north and west elevations and allow the
windows to remain as installed on the restaurant’s south and east facades. The
appeal statement is contained in Attachment A.
BACKGROUND
The proposed Certificate of Appropriateness would modify the windows approved by the Landmarks Commission in 1999 for the second floor expansion of Mariasol Restaurant. The proposed changes are a retroactive request based on windows that have already been installed that are not consistent with the Landmarks Commission’s approval. No other alterations to the approved plans are proposed. On April 14, 2003, the Landmarks Commission held a public hearing and voted 4-2 to approve the application as submitted. A timely appeal of this decision was filed on April 22, 2003 (Attachment A).
Project History
The Landmarks Commission originally approved plans for the design of Mariasol Restaurant (99CA-001) on February 4, 1999, following approval of Conditional Use Permit 99CUP-039. These permits allowed the applicant to enclose an upper level outdoor dining area into a second story for the restaurant. The applicant then applied for a Coastal Commission permit. The Coastal Commission did not approve the request. The Coastal Commission required that no doors be placed in the two entrances to the public viewing deck area and a sign directing the public to the deck be placed adjacent to the second floor opening on the western façade. A CUP amendment (00CUP-026) was then approved to allow the deck to be covered and partially enclosed with the condition that highly visible signs identifying the area as public viewing deck be posted and that the west and south sides be left open consistent with the Coastal Commission requirements.
The approved window pattern on all facades was based on sets of four windows formed with two casements around two narrow fixed panels. The applicant had nearly completed construction of the restaurant expansion when staff discovered that some aspects of the construction did not comply with the Planning Commission, Landmarks Commission and Coastal Commission approvals. The violations included encroachment of the restaurant use into the west-facing public deck area, installation of two doors at the west and south entrances to the public deck, installation of windows that do not comply with the approved design, and elimination of a door on the south facade. As shown in the applicant’s photographs (Attachment C), the windows on all elevations do not comply with the approved plans, and on the north and west façade they primarily consist of large panes of fixed, inoperable windows.
Landmarks Commission Action
At the April 14, 2003 Landmarks Commission hearing, the applicant
testified that he had exceeded his original budget for the expansion of
Mariasol Restaurant due to structural issues that had not been anticipated
related to reinforcement of the structure.
He testified that he installed these windows to reduce costs, believing
that the large single-frame windows provided a more unobstructed view of the
ocean. There were no members of the
public that testified at the hearing.
The Commission discussed the impact of the window modifications. The Mariasol building, while located on a
Landmark parcel, the Santa Monica Pier, is not a historic building, and several
Commissioners expressed opinions that if the building itself does not have
character-defining features, then there is no reason not to approve the request
to change the window pattern. Some
expressed concern with the applicant’s rising project costs. Other Commissioners expressed opposition to
the windows along the public deck area, citing concerns about the building’s
architectural quality and agreeing with staff’s concern that these windows are
not consistent with other elevations, do not allow adequate air circulation,
and make the public area unattractive and unusable during the latter part of
the day, particularly in the summer.
The Commission voted 4-2 to approve the request, noting the absence of
Commissioner Barbara Kaplan, the Commission licensed architect. The Statement of Official Action is included
in Attachment D.
Appeal Statement
The appeal statement raises issues of aesthetics and cites the modified windows’ incompatibility with surrounding structures. It also states that the window pattern the Commission approved makes use of the public deck area difficult, as the lack of air circulation creates a “greenhouse effect.” The appellant also expressed that the request to allow these windows is a “blatant attempt to privatize a public area to give appearance of restaurant use only.” The appellant’s concerns largely mirror staff’s analysis as presented to the Landmarks Commission.
Staff did not recommend that the Landmark Commission
allow the windows to remain as installed.
Rather, the recommendation was to allow the windows to remain on the restaurant’s south and east facades with
the exception of the fixed window on the north end of the east elevation, which
would be replaced with a casement/fixed window combination. Staff recommended denial of the window
modification on the north and west elevations and recommended that they be
replaced by windows in the same pattern and size as those installed on the
south and east elevations.
The review of this project, as with all projects on the Santa Monica Pier, is guided by the Santa Monica Pier Design Guidelines, which were developed to provide standards by which the Landmarks Commission could make judgments regarding the appropriateness of requests on the Pier. The first paragraph of the Guidelines states that “the general intent is to foster the re-creation of a unique “people place” of which the citizens of Santa Monica can be proud.” The Pier Design Guidelines state that windows on new structures should be “in scale and proportion with each other” but do not otherwise provide specific requirements.
The approved window pattern provided the structure with consistency and created a number of openings allowing the interior space to connect with exterior activities on the beach and Pier and to experience the ocean breeze. The Mariasol structure is a prominent focal point at the Pier’s western terminus and the windows are the primary feature on the upper story. Therefore, the proposed changes to the window pattern must be considered in terms of the building’s design as well as the building’s role in the overall visual context of the Pier.
The public viewing deck should be a comfortable and attractive place for people to visit and enjoy without sensing that they intrude on the restaurant’s space. The proposed (installed) window design’s effect on the public’s interaction with this space must also be considered.
On the south elevation, facing the Harbor Office, one of the
two exterior doors (toward the center of the façade) was eliminated while the
other exterior door was installed in a smaller size and moved west. A window was installed in the location where
the center door had been proposed.
Rather than installing fixed and casement windows of equal size, the
sets of windows on the two ends of this elevation include one large fixed
window between a pair of smaller casement windows. A pair of casement windows
was installed in place of the door. The windows installed on the east side of
the restaurant, facing the main Pier deck, consist of both fixed and casement
windows, also in an altered pattern including one larger fixed window between
each set of casements. Only the window
on the north end of the elevation varies from this pattern. This window is a large fixed window.
Staff believes that the windows
on these two elevations are acceptable because they consist of a pattern that
includes operable windows at regular intervals, allowing for ventilation and
visual interaction with the surrounding beach and Pier environment. However, the window in the northeast corner
should be replaced with a fixed glass/casement window combination to achieve
consistency with the rest of the elevation.
The west elevation includes only one set of casement windows
at the south end. All other windows are large, undivided fixed windows that are
inconsistent with the building’s approved pattern and inconsistent with the
altered pattern on the south and east elevations. The fixed windows create an uncomfortable public viewing area
with a greenhouse effect at certain times of day from the intensity of the sun
and lack of fresh air, which detracts from the area’s purpose as a public area
for viewing the Southern California Coast and experiencing the cool ocean
breezes. The two casement windows are inadequate for ventilation because they
open only a maximum of four inches due to Building Code regulations, and do not
permit a cross-breeze.
The large, undivided fixed windows along the north elevation are visible from some angles on the Pier and are especially visible from areas of the beach and bike path north of the Pier. For consistency, the windows on this elevation should match the windows on other elevations. Staff notes that these windows are not in an area reserved for public use and do not take on the full impact of the sun because they face north. Nevertheless, they sever the building’s interior from the outdoor coastal environment and are a focal aspect of a regionally significant view.
The altered pattern of casement and larger fixed windows that was installed on the south and east elevations would also achieve a higher level of design if applied to the west and north elevations. Furthermore, a matching pattern would be more consistent if the south and east elevations are allowed to remain.
CEQA STATUS
The project is categorically exempt from the
provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section
15301(a), Class 1 of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the project
involves a minor alteration to an existing structure.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Sections 9.36.180, notice of this hearing was mailed to all owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius of the exterior boundaries of the Landmark parcel and a newspaper notice published in the LA Times “California” Section at least 10 consecutive days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment B.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not
have any budget or fiscal impact.
It is recommended that the Council overturn the
Landmarks Commission’s determination and uphold in part the appeal to require
the following: 1) allow the windows to remain as installed on the restaurant’s
south and east facades, with the condition that the fixed window on the north
end of the east elevation is replaced with a casement/fixed window combination;
and 2) replace the windows on the north and west elevations by windows in the
same pattern and size as those installed on the south and east elevation.
FINDINGS
1. This
approval amends the south and east elevation plans as shown on those plans
dated February 19, 2003, which are on file in the City Planning Division,
except that the fixed window on the north end of the east elevation shall be
replaced with a casement/fixed window combination. The windows on the north and west elevations shall be installed
with a pattern of casement window pairs surrounding a fixed window identical to
the pattern of the east elevation. The
applicant shall submit plans with the same window pattern for the west and
north elevations for the Landmarks Commission Secretary’s approval prior to
installation.
2. This
Certificate of Appropriateness shall be in full force and effect from and after
the date of the rendering of the decision by the Council. Pursuant to Landmarks Ordinance Section
9.36.170(h), this approval shall expire one year from the date of approval if
the authorized work is not commenced.
Should the applicant be unable to comply with this restriction, an
extension may be granted pursuant to Landmarks Ordinance Section 9.36.250 if
requested prior to expiration of this permit for a period of up to 180 days if
the development standards relevant to the project have not changed since
project approval. In addition, this
Certificate of Appropriateness shall expire if the authorized work is suspended
for a 180-day period after being commenced.
3.
Final approval for the existing Building permit shall not be
granted until windows as required herein have been installed to the
satisfaction of the Landmarks Commission Secretary.
4.
All required Planning and Building Permit approvals shall be
obtained.
Prepared
by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Kimberly Christensen, AICP, Senior Planner
Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP, Associate Planner, City
Planning Division
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachments:
A.
Appeal Statement
B.
Notice of Hearing
C.
Landmarks Commission
Staff Report, dated April 14, 2003, with all attachments
D.
Landmarks Commission Statement of Official
Action
ATTACHMENT A
APPEAL STATEMENT
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office and the Libraries.
ATTACHMENT B
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF
A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Appeal
03AP-005
401 Santa
Monica Pier
APPELLANT: Ed Muzika
APPLICANT: Mariasol Restaurant/Camacho, Inc.
PROPERTY OWNER: City Of Santa Monica
A public hearing will be held by
the City Council to consider the following request:
Appeal of the Landmarks
Commission’s Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness LC-03-CA-004 Allowing Modifications to the
Approved Windows on the Second Floor of Mariasol Restaurant.
DATE/TIME: TUESDAY,
MAY 20, 2003, AT 6:45 p.m.
LOCATION: City
Council Chambers, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall
1685
Main Street, Santa Monica, California
HOW TO COMMENT
The City of Santa Monica
encourages public comment. You may comment at the City Council public hearing,
or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the City Council
at the meeting.
Address your letters to: City
Clerk
Re:
03APP-005
1685
Main Street, Room 102
Santa
Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If you want more information about
this project or wish to review the project file, please contact Elizabeth
Bar-El, AICP, at (310) 458-8341, or by e-mail at
elizabeth-bar-el@santa-monica.org. The Landmarks Ordinance is available at the
Planning Counter during business hours and on the City’s web site at www.santa-monica.org.
The meeting facility is wheelchair
accessible. For disability-related accommodations, please contact (310)
458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance. All written
materials are available in alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue
Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 serve City Hall.
Pursuant to California Government
Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court, the
challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing.
ESPAÑOL
Esto es una noticia de una
audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa
Monica. Si deseas más información,
favor de llamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la División de Planificación al número
(310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
JAY M. TREVINO, AICP
Planning Manager
F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\NOTICES\03APP005.doc
LANDMARKS COMMISSION STAFF REPORT, DATED APRIL 14,
2003
M
E M O R A N D U M
CITY
PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY
OF SANTA MONICA
DATE: April 14,
2003
TO: The
Honorable Landmarks Commission
FROM: Planning
Staff
SUBJECT: Certificate
of Appropriateness LC-03-CA-004, 401 Santa Monica Pier (Mariasol)
Request to
allow revisions to Certificate of Appropriateness 99CA-001 for façade on an
upper level addition to the restaurant, located on the Landmark Santa Monica
Pier.
APPLICANT:
Camacho Inc.
PROPERTY
OWNER: City of Santa Monica
INTRODUCTION
This application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted on February 19, 2003, requesting to amend the façade design approved by the Landmarks Commission in 1999. The proposed changes are a retroactive request based on windows that have already been installed, which are not consistent with the Landmarks Commission’s approval. No other alterations to the approved plans are proposed.
On February 4, 1999, the Landmarks Commission approved plans for the design of Mariasol Restaurant (99CA-001), following approval of Conditional Use Permit 99CUP-039. The permits allowed the applicant to enclose an upper level outdoor dining area into a second story for the restaurant. The applicants then applied for a Coastal Commission permit. The Coastal Commission did not approve the restaurant’s use of some of the area that has been public viewing deck on the west side of the upper level. A CUP amendment (00CUP-026) was then processed, allowing the applicants to adjust their plans so as not to reduce overall floor area in return for maintaining the deck on the west side of the building for public use. The deck was allowed to be covered and partially enclosed; however, the applicants were required to post highly visible signs identifying the area as public viewing deck and to leave openings on the west and south sides.
The window pattern on all facades in the approved plans for 99CA-001 was based on sets of four windows formed with two casements around two narrow fixed panels. The applicant has now nearly completed construction of the restaurant extension, but prior to completion, staff discovered that some aspects of the construction did not comply with the Planning Commission, Landmarks Commission and Coastal Commission approvals. The violations included encroachment of the restaurant use into the west-facing public deck area, installation of two doors at the west and south entrances to the public deck and installation of windows that do not comply with the approved design. As shown in the applicant’s photographs (Attachment C), the windows on all elevations do not comply with the approved plans, and on the north and west façade they primarily consist of large panes of fixed, inoperable windows.
Staff may only approve a final building permit when all permit conditions of approval have been satisfied. Many of the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Commission violations have been resolved, and the applicants are currently implementing interior changes in order to comply with all conditions of these permits. However, prior to issuance of a final building permit, the applicants must either reinstall the windows as approved by the Landmarks Commission or obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness in order to allow the windows to remain as installed. The applicant elected to submit this application in order to request approval of the windows as installed.
ANALYSIS
In reviewing this project, as with all projects on the Santa Monica Pier, the Landmarks Commission is guided by the first paragraph of the Guidelines, which states that “the general intent is to foster the re-creation of a unique “people place” of which the citizens of Santa Monica can be proud.” The Pier Design Guidelines state that windows on new structures should be “in scale and proportion with each other” but do not otherwise provide specific requirements for this situation.
The approved window pattern (Attachment D) provided the structure with consistency and created a number of openings allowing the interior space to connect with exterior activities on the beach and Pier and to experience the ocean breeze. The Mariasol structure is a prominent focal point at the Pier’s western terminus and the windows are the primary feature on the upper story. Therefore, the proposed changes to the window pattern must be considered in terms of the building’s design as well as the building’s role in the overall visual context of the Pier.
The public viewing deck should be a comfortable and attractive place for people to visit and enjoy without sensing that they intrude on the restaurant’s space. The proposed (installed) window design’s effect on the public’s interaction with this space must also be considered.
On the south elevation, facing the
Harbor Office, the location of the exterior door was moved west and a window
was installed in the location where the door had been proposed. Rather than installing fixed and casement
windows of equal size, the sets of windows on the two ends of this elevation
include one large fixed window between a pair of smaller casement windows. A
pair of casement windows was installed in place of the door. The windows
installed on the east side of the restaurant, facing the main Pier deck,
consist of both fixed and casement windows, also in an altered pattern
including one larger fixed window between each set of casements. Only the window on the north end of the
elevation varies from this pattern.
This window is a large fixed window.
Staff believes that the windows on
these two elevations are mostly acceptable because they consist of a pattern
that includes operable windows at regular intervals, allowing for ventilation
and visual interaction with the surrounding beach and Pier environment. However, the window in the northeast corner
should be replaced with a fixed glass/casement window combination to achieve
consistency with the rest of the elevation.
The west elevation includes only one
set of casement windows at the south end. All other windows are large,
undivided fixed windows that are inconsistent with the building’s approved
pattern and inconsistent with the altered pattern on the south and east
elevations. The fixed windows create an
uncomfortable public viewing area with a greenhouse effect at certain times of
day from the intensity of the sun and lack of fresh air, which detracts from
the area’s purpose as a public area for viewing the Southern California Coast
and experiencing the cool ocean breezes. The two casement windows are
inadequate for ventilation because they open only a maximum of four inches due
to Building Code regulations, and do not permit a cross-breeze.
The large, undivided fixed windows along the north elevation are visible from some angles on the Pier and are especially visible from areas of the beach and bike path north of the Pier. For consistency, the windows on this elevation should match the windows on other elevations. Staff notes that these windows are not in an area reserved for public use and do not take on the full impact of the sun because they are north-facing. Nevertheless, they sever the building’s interior from the outdoor coastal environment and are a focal aspect of a regionally significant view.
Overall, the windows that were approved in Certificate of Appropriateness 99-001 are superior in design and quality and architecturally consistent throughout in comparison with the windows that were installed for which approval is now sought. The casement window and smaller fixed window pattern would provide a level of articulation and texture that is not achieved with the fixed windows. They would also provide access to fresh air and to the sounds of the beach and ocean that are associated with the Pier experience. Enhancing that experience is a foundational key Pier Guideline concept.
The altered pattern of casement and larger fixed windows that was installed on the south and east elevations would also achieve a higher level of design if applied to the west and north elevations. Considering staff’s evaluation that the window pattern on the south and east elevations is acceptable, staff would consider that pattern acceptable also on the remaining two elevations. Furthermore, a matching pattern would be more consistent if the south and east elevations are allowed to remain.
NOTICE
Notice of this hearing was provided as required by Sections 9.36.170(c) of the Landmarks Ordinance, with notice sent to all owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius and a newspaper notice published in the LA Times “California” Section at least 10 days prior to the hearing (Attachment B).
CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATION
FINDINGS
1. This
approval amends the south and east elevation plans only, as shown on those
plans dated February 19, 2003, which are on file in the City Planning Division,
except that the fixed window on the north end of the east elevation shall be
replaced with a casement/fixed window combination. The windows on the north and west elevations shall be installed
with a pattern of casement window pairs surrounding a fixed window identical to
the pattern of the east elevation. The
applicant shall submit plans with the same window pattern for the west and
north elevations for the Landmarks Commission Secretary’s approval prior to
installation.
2. This
Certificate of Appropriateness shall be in full force and effect from and after
the date of the rendering of the decision by the Commission. Pursuant to Landmarks Ordinance Section
9.36.170(h), this approval shall expire one year from the date of approval if
the authorized work is not commenced.
Should the applicant be unable to comply with this restriction, an
extension may be granted pursuant to Landmarks Ordinance Section 9.36.250 if
requested prior to expiration of this permit.
In addition, this Certificate of Appropriateness shall expire if the
authorized work is suspended for a 180-day period after being commenced.
5. This decision
may be appealed by properly filing with the Director of Planning a Notice of
Appeal on a form furnished by the Planning Department. Such notice shall be filed within a ten (10)
day time period commencing from the date of the determination.
6. Final approval
for the existing Building permit shall not be granted until windows as required
herein have been installed to the satisfaction of the Landmarks Commission
Secretary.
7. All required
Planning and Building Permit approvals shall be obtained.
Attachments:
C. Project
Plans/Photographs
D. Approved plans
(99CA-001)
F:\PLAN\SHARE\Landmarks\REPORTS\2003
Reports\CA03-004 Mariasol.doc
LANDMARKS COMMISSION STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
LANDMARKS COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
SUBJECT: LC-03-CA-004
ADDRESS: 401 Santa Monica Pier
APPLICANT: Santa Monica
Amusements, LLC
REQUEST: Certificate of Appropriateness LC-03-CA-004
to allow revisions to Certificate of Appropriateness 99CA-001 for window
changes to the façade of an upper level addition to Mariasol restaurant,
located on the Landmark Santa Monica Pier.
LANDMARKS COMMISSION ACTION
04/14/2003 Date
X
Approved based on the following findings and
subject to the conditions below.
Denied
Other
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTION
04/24/2003 Certificate of
Appropriateness LC-03-CA-004
EXPIRATION DATE OF PERMIT GRANTED
04/24/2004
Certificate of Appropriateness LC-03-CA-004
FINDINGS
Per SMMC 9.36.140(a):
1. This
approval amends Certificate of Appropriateness 99CA-001 and approves the design
of the windows as installed and as shown in the plans dated February 19, 2003,
which are on file in the City Planning Division.
2. This
Certificate of Appropriateness shall be in full force and effect from and after
the date of the rendering of the decision by the Commission. Pursuant to Landmarks Ordinance Section
9.36.170(h), this approval shall expire within one year if the authorized work
is not commenced. Should the applicant
be unable to comply with this restriction, an extension may be granted pursuant
to Section 9.36.250 for an additional 180 days maximum. The applicant must request such an extension
prior to expiration of this permit.
After that time, the applicant will be required to return to the
Commission for approval. In addition,
this Certificate of Appropriateness shall expire if the authorized work is
suspended for a 180-day period after being commenced.
3. This
decision may be appealed by properly filing with the Director of Planning a
Notice of Appeal on a form furnished by the Planning Department. Such notice shall be filed within a ten
(10)-day time period commencing from the date of the determination.
4. All
required Planning and Building Permit approvals shall be obtained.
VOTE:
Ayes: Posek,
Rosenfield Schnitzler, Lehrer
Nays: Fresco, Genser
Absent:
Kaplan
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 1400.
I hereby certify that this Statement of Official
Action accurately reflects the final determination of the Landmarks Commission
of the City of Santa Monica.
_ _____ ____________________
Roger Genser, Chair Pro Tempore Date
F:\PLAN\SHARE\Landmarks\STOAS\2003\Mariasol
03CA-004 CA.doc