SR-101000-7A
PCD:SF:JT:SHK:JM f:\plan\share\council\stoas\00APP075.doc
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 Commissions denial of Conditional Use
=
Permit 98-047 to allow the construction of a ten-unit condominium project with twenty-two
th
subterranean parking spaces accessed from 15 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.
1
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
2
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
3
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
th
project located at 834-838 16 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
4
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.
5
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
6
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
thth
increased traffic and congestion along 15 Court Alley as well as on 16 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
7
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
8
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
thth
increased traffic and congestion along 15 Court Alley as well as on 16 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
9
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
10
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
doc
F:\PLAN\SHARE\council\STOAS\00APP075.
11