The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-080800-7A 1-A PCD: SF :JT: SK:JM :f:\plan\share\cou ncil\strpt\00app07 5 .final.doc Council Mtg. August 8, 2000 Santa Monica, California TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Staff SUBJECT: 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. Applicant/Appellant: Norman Salter. Property Owner: Norman Salter. INTRODUCTION This report recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit 98-047 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 52649 to allow the construction of a 10-unit condominium project with 22 subterranean parking spaces. On July 5, 2000 the Planning Commission voted 5-1 to deny the project. The applicant appealed this decision on July 13, 2000. The Planning Commission staff report is included in this report as Attachment A. The Statement of Official Action of the Planning Commission is included as Attachment B. BACKGROUND The subject property is located in the R-2, Low Density Multiple Family Residential District, and consists of two interior lots comprising 15,000 square feet in area. A single- family dwelling is located on the northernmost lot (834 16th St.) and two residential, -1- dwellings exist on the adjacent lot (838 16th St.). The structures will be demolished and the two lots will be consolidated and developed as one project. Proiect Description The applicant proposes to construct two two-story symmetrical buildings, each with 5 attached townhouse-style condominiums. The buildings will be 30 feet in height and will include a mezzanine between the first and second stories. Projections above the building height will include 42-inch high parapet walls and ten mechanical room enclosures that project 9 feet above the flat rooflines; thus the total height would be 39 feet. The ten units will have similar floor plans that will range from 1,360 to 1,510 square feet in floor area. Entrances to the individual units will be provided from an interior common courtyard. Additional access will be provided via interior stairways from the subterranean garage bays to the foyer of the individual units. Planning Commission Action On July 5, 2000, the Planning Commission denied the project. Nine members of the public spoke against the project. Their testimony focused principally on increased traffic and safety hazards that would be created by the project. In addition, the project would block views, light, and air due to its mass and height. Additionally, the project would increase demand for off-site parking that would exacerbate the existing congested parking along Sixteenth Street. Other concerns included the negative impacts of noise and dust from continuous construction that has occurred within the block. In response to these concerns, the applicant suggested that the item be continued to allow the applicant to meet with the -2- neighbors to address their concerns and possibly allow for redesign. The Planning Commission discussed the implications of continuing the item to allow for the applicant to redesign the project. On advice from the City Attorney, the Planning Commission decided that it had to act on the merits of the project due to time limitations imposed by the State Permit Streamlining Act. Addressing the merits of the project, one of the Planning Commission's primary concerns involved the mass and height of the buildings in relation to the scale and character of the neighborhood, with the adverse impacts of blocking light, views and air circulation to adjacent residential buildings. While the proposed project is technically two stories extending 30 feet in height, the Planning Commission stated that the effect of the structure plus projections will have the same scale and massing effect as a four-story, 39-foot high building. With building uses surrounding the proposed project consisting of primarily one and two-story residential structures, no other building in the vicinity of the proposed project is as large as the project. The proposed project has no design features that would tend to mitigate or mask its height and mass and thus allow it to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission was also concerned that utilization of the alley to access the subject site would cause safety hazards due to existing traffic congestion and visibility constraints. The Commission believed that additional traffic in the neighborhood, the addition of cars parked on the street and the congestion generated in the alley would -3- reduce the livability of the neighborhood. The garage access on the alley, which is already narrow and congested, together with the limited setbacks at the rear of adjacent buildings would create a potentially dangerous traffic situation. Based on the evidence before the Planning Commission, the Commission was unable to make all the findings necessary for approval of the conditional use permit and tentative tract map for the project. In particular, the Planning Commission found: 1) that the project would impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located; 2) that the proposed use/improvements are not consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan; and 3) that the proposed use would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare and the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is likely to cause serious public health problems. The Planning Commission found that the cumulative effect of the proposed two- story buildings, mezzanines, and rooftop mechanical enclosures would essentially have the same scale and massing effect as a four-story, 39-foot high building placed adjacent to the existing one and two-story structure in the neighborhood. The mass and height of the project would block light, view, air, and would jeopardize the privacy of the adjacent neighbors. Further, the mass and height of the project would not be compatible with and would change the character of the neighborhood since the project would be larger than all other developments in the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission also focused on the project's inconsistencies with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. The project would negatively affect the quality of life in the residential neighborhoods and the scale and character of the neighborhood which are specific objectives of the Land Use -4- Element of the General Plan. In discussions pertaining to the alley, the Planning Commission concluded that while the alley access is preferable to encourage pedestrian orientation, safety, and continuity along Sixteenth Street, the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is likely to cause serious public health problems and would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare. The Commission noted 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. There were also concerns regarding the interior circulation of the garage. In conclusion, the Planning Commission felt that the modifications that would be necessary to address their concerns, and the concerns expressed by the public testimony, could not be adequately addressed simply through conditions of approval but instead would require substantial redesign of the project. Given time constraints mandated by the State Permit Streamlining Act, continuing the matter for redesign was not feasible. Consequently, the Commission acted to deny the project, without prejudice, to allow the applicant to redesign, reapply and return to the Planning Commission in a timely manner. The vote was 5-1. APPEAL Norman Salter, the applicant and owner of the subject property, appealed the Planning Commission decision. The appeal statement is contained in Attachment C and is based upon three arguments as identified below and followed by staff's response: -5- 1. The project conforms with all applicable development standards and cannot be denied without a clear case of jeopardy to public health and safety. The appellant states that the project meets all applicable development standards and pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.50), the project cannot be denied "unless there is a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete," that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated or avoided other than by disapproval. The applicant states that the only discussion of public safety that was raised during the hearing pertained to the use of the alley to access the subject property, which is required by Code and that the predominate discussions for disapproval revolved around aesthetic rather than safety and health issues. Further, the appellant states that the Planning Commission's decision did not allow a redesign to address the public concerns and concerns of the Planning Commission to mitigate any negative impacts. Staff disagrees on a number of grounds. First, the Legislature did not intend for this section to apply to charter cities since it is not an affordable housing project. Second, had the Legislature sought to apply this section to charter cities, the legislation would raise serious separation of powers issues. Third, assuming that this section were applicable, the Planning Commission made the findings required by Section 65589.50) as detailed in this staff report. Based upon the Planning Commission's concerns, written petitions and public testimony, -6- staff concurs with the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project without prejudice, as proposed. The public testimony voiced concerns regarding the project's mass and height, and their effect on views, light, and air of the adjacent properties and concerns regarding the circulation and safety of the use of the alley. Although the proposed project met certain specific development standards, there are compelling defects with the project that require redesign. The cumulative effect of the proposed two-story buildings, mezzanines, and rooftop mechanical enclosures would have the same scale and massing effect as a four-story, 39-foot high building placed adjacent to the existing one and two story developments in the neighborhood and would impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood. The quality of life in the neighborhood would be diminished by the project because the height of the building would block the views and light of adjacent properties and the proposed landscaping and landscaping buffers do not provide sufficient privacy for adjacent neighbors. In addition, the livability of the neighborhood will be diminished by increased traffic and congestion along 15th Court Alley. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision with the garage access on the already narrow and congested alley, together with the limited setbacks at the rear of adjacent buildings creates a potentially dangerous traffic situation that would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare and is likely to cause serious public health problems. Further, the height of the project will also block light and air circulation to the residential buildings surrounding it. 2. The proiect is compatible with the surroundina neiahborhood. The appellant states that the project is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the -7- surrounding neighborhood and is comparable to other projects that have been approved in the City. Staff disagrees. Based on the public testimony and additional evidence in the record, staff maintains that the project would adversely affect the scale and integrity of the neighborhood. The 39-foot high condominiums, (including the 9-foot rooftop enclosures), would be substantially higher than the existing buildings within the block. Further, the height and bulk of the project would impair the light, air, views, and enjoyment of the adjacent properties. The project provides minimum setbacks to comply with development standards, but does not provide any additional setbacks or r€duce the building's height to address the close proximity of adjacent buildings. In addition, the project would be detrimental to the neighborhood with respect to the alley access in that the increase in traffic would exacerbate the congested condition of the alley and would impose more hazards due to lack of visibility caused by existing developments that are located at property line. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission that concerns regarding the project's massive scale, and the safety issues along the alley, could not have been effectively alleviated through conditions of approval. Given the time constraints mandating a decision at the hearing, there were no feasible options other than denial of the project. 3. No action was taken on the tentative mao aoolication within 50 davs after it was deemed comolete, and therefore. the oroiect is automatically deemed aooroved. The appellant states that pursuant to Government Code Section 66452.4 and Santa Monica Subdivision Ordinance Section 9.20.14.030(b), the Vesting Tentative Tract Map -8- was automatically deemed approved as of July 7, 1999, the date the appellant originally agreed to continue the hearing to. However, the Planning Commission was not required to act upon the map by that date since necessary environmental review had not been completed. Moreover, Government Code Section 66452.4 provides that a tentative map shall be deemed approved only if it otherwise complies with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and local law. See Pongputmong v. City of Santa Monica, 15 Cal. App. 4th 99, 18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 550 (1993) (tentative map could only be deemed approved if it complied with local law). As discussed above, this map did not comply with local law. The appellant further contends that the tentative map should be deemed approved pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act since the Planning Commission did not act upon the map at its July 5, 2000 meeting. However, while the Planning Commission's discussion at the hearing focused on the conditional use permit, the motion before the Commission was to deny the project. Since the project included both the conditional use permit and the tentative map, the Commission's decision encompassed both permit applications. Moreover, in its subsequently adopted Statement of Official Action, the PI::mninn l.nmmi<;<;inn ~nAr.ifir.;:lllv rlAniArl hnth thA r.nnrlitinn;:lIIJ<;A nArmit ;:lnrl thA tAnt;:ltivA . .~.......~ --.......--.-.. -.----...--""J --...-- ~---. -..- --..---.-..-. ~-- ,-.....--..- -..- -_.._--.-- .................... ............J ............. .&.....-&.L-.. ............ _.....1................... .&:"'..J:.....-...... ...........................:......"'" .......:.... ..J...........:....I ^..J.....I:...:...............II.. ............ .....,.:..J...................... IlldfJ dllU ~t:a IUllIl lilt: 1t:It:VdIIlIIlIUIII!:P ;:'UfJfJUllIl'!::j lIl1;:' Ut:llldl. r\UUllIulle",y, lilt: t:VIUt:I'vt: in the record supporting the deniai of the conditional use permit also supports the denial of the tentative map. The Commission's failure to expressly discuss the tentative map at the hearing does not invalidate the Commission's denial of the map. -9- Appellant also contends that the Commission inappropriately denied the project solely to comply with the time requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act. This is simply wrong. The Commission denied the project because it could not make the findings required to approve the CUP or the tentative map. While the Permit Streamlining Act required that the Commission act on July 5th, 2000 the Commission denied the project on its merits, not based on the project's procedural posture. Finally, the appellant contends that the Commission's actions were inconsistent with the CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption that had been accorded the project. However, while staff determined that the project was categorically exempt under Class 32, the Planning Commission did not address this determination since it chose to deny the project. Appellant's suggestion that the Planning Commission was barred from reaching different factual conclusions, based on public testimony and other evidence, than staff reached in its exemption determination has no basis in law. Conclusion The project does not satisfy the required findings for the conditional use permit and the tentative tract map. In order to make findings, substantial modifications to the design of the building to mitigate impacts on the light, air, view, and potential safety hazards within the alley are required. The scope of these modifications prevents approval of the project at this hearing. -10- 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, if the Council finds that the project is inconsistent with the City's Land Use or Housing Elements, this exemption would not be applicable and further environmental review may be required depending on Council's action. PUBLIC NOTICE Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.20.080, within 15 days after the subject application was deemed complete, the applicant posted a sign on the property stating the following information: Project case number, brief project description, name and telephone number of applicant, site address, date, time and location of public hearing, and the City Planning Division phone number. It is the applicant's responsibility to update the hearing date if it is changed after posting. An appeal must be posted in the same manner as the original posting. The applicant posted the appeal sign on July 20,2000. In addition, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property 1................+........-.1 u,if.hit"'\ .... h:t1t1 f__+ r~.-lillC' _f +ho. nrr.io.,," '::Inri nllhlic-harl in "he "nllr Tirnac" corti"n r\f IUvCH.'VU VVILIIIII 0 -.,.Jvv IVVL I ClUIUoCJ VI 11.11'1;:;0 1'-"1 VJvVL 011\..1 t-',..UJlluIIVU III lll'- _UI 11I11'Vv ..................._11.....-' the Los Angeles Times at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. in addition, the Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition was noticed. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment D. -11- Cllln~CT/CI"I^"lrl^1 1~~D^rT LJVLJ'-"L..III 11'IIIf\I'VITU_ IIVII f\'-J I The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit 98-047 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 52649 based on the following findings and conditions: FINDINGS 1. The proposed development consists of the construction of a 1 O-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. A public hearing on the proposed project was held by the City of 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, written communication was submitted by the public including letters in opposition to the project and a petition signed by 46 neighborhood residents who opposed the project. A Th_ .....................................,...,..1 ................i...........+'r- ,..1.....\,.......1.............._1'" h.."r"" +h....... hi 11""1"'1_" _of: t"\r"_\/irlinrt ~\/irl~n,...C'J. C"llffi,....iant ~. I lit:; ..... utJVvvU 1--'1 UJv.....L v UtJYvlU!Jvl Iletu LII'IJ IJUI \.Ivll VI tJl VVIUIII~ 'CiV IUlJllvv vUIII'Vll;,Il.... to enable the City Council to make the findings required by Section 9.20.14.040 and 9.04.20. i 2.040. 5. The evidence presented at the City Council hearing on th.e proposed project indicated that the project would consist of two buildings spanning two City lots. As designed, the applicant proposes to develop two symmetrical buildings, each with 5 attached to\r^Jnhouse=style condominiums. \^Jhile the proposed project is technically two stories extending 30 feet in height, it also includes mezzanine levels, 42-inch high parapet walls and ten mecrlanical room enclosures that will project 9 feet above the flat roofline. The effect of the structure plus projections will have the same scale and massing effect as a four-story, 39-foot high building. 6. Building uses surrounding the proposed project consist of primarily one and two- -12- 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. 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. f"'\ Tho cllhio,...,.t n~.........ol ic nh\lci,..-:::lIlh, Cllit!:lhlo ff"\r tho hi no t'\f l!:In" IICO hoinn VJ 111- 'L.J''U....J....'lJL 1'.,...,(1'-'_1 I.... 1'-'11.1......""'......111 ...,.................._ ...." 1.11'-' ".11'-'- __ 1......11...... '-'1...._ .........,111:::11 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. I- \ I.......... ......1-. ......:..........1 I...................:.......... ........ .....1........""'....................... .......f +1.-........ . ............ ............. ...1.-....... .....:......... :..... .................................:hl...... ...,:.f.h II) I lit; IJIIY~lval IU\.oQLlUII VI (JlovCIIICIIl. VI lilt:::: u~c VII Lllv ~ILv Ii:) vUllltJOLlUIC VVll11 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, C",...f"~h.1 ""r'\o~"H/~ni~n,...o ".",. rlClonL::'l.,.~1 ""oC'Iolf~r.o. .,;;)o.lylY, \",UIIVCiIIl'C'II\.,oV1 VI ~vllvlCtI YVvllo.lV'. k) I ne proposed use conforms preCiselY to the appiicaole 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. -13- 1) The proposed use will not result in an over concentration of such uses in the il"'l"'lt.l"Y'l........-li....+1"'\ \lil"'loini+\I 111111 IC;;U 10 lC;; VILolIlIlY. 9. Based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the City Council was 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 cumulative effect of the proposed two-story buildings, mezzanines, and rooftop mechanical enclosures would have the same scale and massing effect as a four- story, 39-foot high building placed adjacent to the existing one and two story developments in the neighborhood, and in that this scale is not consistent with the pedestrian scale along the Sixteenth Street and is not consistent with the integrity of the neighborhood. 10. Based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the City Council was unable tn finrl in <on <offirrn<oti\J<> rn<onn<>r <0'" r<>nl,ir<>rl n\J ~<ont<o I\Anni,,<o I\A, mi"in<ol r.nrl<> ..- .......... "' ........, ......,.".................. ..........._', ............ '...,"1......._- ......} --.......... ,.................... ..................'1""........ --.......... Section 9.04.20.12.040 (i) that "the proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan," in that the area is defined as a multi- family residential area in the Land Use Element and Housing Element of the General Plan which establishes objectives relative to the subject project: a) Objective 1.1: "Protecting the quality of life in all residential neighborhoods." The quality of life in the neighborhood will be diminished in this neighborhood by the project because the height of the building will block the views and light of adjacent properties and the proposed landscaping and landscaping buffers do not provide sufficient privacy for adjacent neighbors. In addition, the livability of the neighborhood will be diminished by increased traffic and congestion along 15th Court Alley. b) Objective 1.2: "Ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses, with particular concern for protecting residential neighborhoods." The project has a greater h......il""th+ ..h.....n i+~ I"'\......il"\llh.............il""'lrl II~OC' Tho. n.o.inhhn.r +_ +hn nnr+h \uhi,...h ico h.u", Ilvl~IIL Lllall IL~ 11'l;J1~IIUUIIII~ U\;lC;;,;;). I Ilv Ilvl~IIIJVI l.V \'llv IIVI L1I, "Vlllvll Iv LVVV stories on top of a half-excavated, half above ground garage, is the largest in the neighborhood; the proposed project, with its mezzanine level and mechanical roof top projections, is 39 feet tall and has the visual appearance of a four-story building. c) Objective 1.10: "Expand the opportunity for residential land use while nrntof'tinn thQ c""!JIla !:linn f"'h!:llr!:lli""'tlO,r nf avictinn noit"'1hh......rht"\n,..h::~: Jl Tho. nAinht 1"-"_..............111:::11 1..,..... ...,....."-",..... _'1"-'1 ..... n...._............ ......, _..............III::::J "_'::::J' ................ .__......... I....... I.......::::J'... and mass of the proposed project is larger than the existing structures in the immediate neighborhood. The proposed project, with its mezzanine level and mechanical roof top projections, is 39 feet tall and has the visual appearance of a four-story building, which exceeds the heights of the existing structures in the neighborhood. The proposed project provides the minimum required setbacks with no additional setback to provide relief for -14- neighboring sites that are much lower in height and which have minimum side yard setbacks. d) The City's Housing Element of the General Plan establishes housing policies relevant to this project, including "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 additional traffic in the neighborhood, the addition of cars parked on the street, and the congestion generated in the alley will reduce the livability of the neighborhood. The bulkiness of the building and its affect on views and light will be adverse impacts. The building as proposed has no design features that would tend to mitigate or mask its height and mass and thus allow it to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 11. Based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the City Council was unable to find in an affirmative manner, as required by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.12.040 U) that "the proposed use would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare," 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. 12. 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. -15- g) The design of the subdivisions or the type of improvements will conflict with .o.'-:]c-Cl.r'n.a.ntC' -::a"""'llirarl h" tho. rUlhli,... "'='0+ I~r''''.o. f,..",. ~""""CI.~~ +h,.r\lll""'lh "... II~a ,...f 'Vo.v'VlllvIILv, Ov"1....llvU uJ Lllv tJUUlI'-' en lal~:fl':'l IVI cn...v'V".." lIIlVU~11 VI UVV VI, property within the proposed subdivision. h) The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with any ordinance or law of the City of Santa Monica. 13. 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 1.1: "Protecting the quality of life in all residential neighborhoods." ThA m l::llitv of lifA in thA nAinhhorhoorl will hA rlimini<::hArl in thi<: . ..- '--"~J -. ...- ... ~..- '.-'.-:1"--"'--- ..... -- -........-..--- ... ~...- neighborhood by the project because the height of the building will block +L...... ..:............ .........-.1 I:......I.-+....~ .........1:................-... ...._..............-":.-..- ............J "'1.-,.. ..............................-.1 I...........J,.................:........... lilt:: VIt::W::> dllU 1I!:jlll UI dUJdl.;t::11l I-'IUI-'t::llIt::::> dllU lilt:: I-'IUI-'U:::>t::U IdIIU::>l.;dl-'"l!:j and landscaping buffers do not provide sufficient privacy for adjacent neighbors. In addition, the livability of the neighborhood will be diminished by increased traffic and congestion along 15th Court Alley. b) Objective 1.2: "Ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses, with particular concern for protecting residential neighborhoods." The project has a greater height than its neighboring uses. The neighbor to immediate north, which reflects the largest development in the neighborhood, is two stories above a semi-subterranean garage. The proposed project. with its mezzanine level and mechanical roof top projections, is 39 feet tall and has the visual appearance of a four-story building. The proposed project will block light and view of the adjacent neighbors. c) Objective 1.10: Expand the opportunity for residential land use v/hile protecting the scale and character of existing neighborhoods. The height and mass of the proposed project is larger than the existing struciures in the immediate neighborhood. The proposed project, with its mezzanine level and mechanical roof top projections, is 39 feet tall and has the visual appearance of a four-story building, which exceeds the heights of the existing structures in the neighborhood. The proposed project provides the minimllm rAnllirArl "Ath<>,-k" with nn <>rlrlitinn<>1 "Ath<>,-k tn nrn\JirlA rAliAf fnr ...".....""'... ..........,......-....... ................................."..... ......, """" ..................................., ........................................ ,.."........ ............. ................ ........ neighboring sites that are much lower in height and which have minimum _:-1.... . .__-1 _....+L..__I~,... TL.......... .111..........-.1 ..........:.....1-+ ....+ ~L......... ....._......:......... ...:11 :..................:... 1:.-.1-'" ....:_ :SlUt:: YdlU :::>t::lUdL;I\::>. lilt:: UUII\ dllU 11t::1!:jlll UI Lilt:: 1-'1 UJt::l.;l Will II I I I-'d II 11!:jlll, dll, view, and enjoyment of the adjacent properties, and would negatively affect the character and the one to two-story scale of the neighborhood. d) The City's Housing Element of the General Plan establishes housing -16- policies relevant to this project, including "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 additional traffic in the neighborhood, the addition of cars parked on the street, and the congestion generated in the alley will reduce the livability of the neighborhood. The bulkiness of the building and its affect on views and light will be adverse impacts. The building as proposed has no design features that would tend to mitigate or mask its height and mass and thus allow it to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 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 (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. 15. The proposed project is subject to the State Permit Streamlining Act ("Act"). The Act mandated that the Planning Commission approve or disapprove the project at its July 5, 2000 meeting. Since the proposed project requires fundamental and substantial redesign, there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the negative impact of the project short of denying the project. 16. 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. 17. 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 and there is not feasible method to satisfactory or avoid these impacts other than disapproval of this project. -17- Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director Jay Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager Susan Healy Keene, AICP, Senior Planner Jean M. Moore, AICP, Associate Planner Planning and Community Development Department Attachments: A: B: C 0: E: F. Planning Commission Staff Report (July 5, 2000) with attachments Draft Statement of Official Action (Agendized for August 2, 2000 Planning Commission Hearing) Appeal Statement Notice of Public Hearing Letters and Petition from Neighborhood Residents Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations F :\plan\share \CD U nci l\stfrpt\OOappO 7 5. fi nal.d DC -18- /-'l In I. CITY COUNCIL MEETING: t? I BID l I J ----. Yl ITEM: ) -f-t. A HO-Ln mOl ts -to -;A THIS ITEM IS NOT AVAILABLE 1=1 I=~TR()NI~AI 1 V ITI=M .............~.. ,....................... ...~...... .. ~.... ^\/^II ^CI C IJ\.I TUC r\ v r\ I L.r\ U L. L... II '" I I I L... -..__, I -.. __.I~_ ___.-._ \,jll Y \,jLt:Kt\..~ Urrl\,jt:.