SR-091002-1E
Council Mtg: September 10, 2002
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Certification of the Statement of Official Action for Approval of Conditional
Use Permit 01-016, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 52649 and Environmental
Impact Report 99-005 for a 10-Unit Residential Condominium Project With
Twenty-Two Subterranean Parking Spaces at 834-838 16th Street.
Applicant: Norman Salter.
INTRODUCTION
This staff report transmits for City Council certification the Statement of Official Action for
Conditional Use Permit 98-047, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 52649 and Environmental
Impact Report 99-005for a 10-unit residential condominium project with twenty-two
th
subterranean parking spaces at 834-838 16 Street.
On July 23, 2002 the City Council voted 6-0 with one Council member abstaining to certify
the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project, adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and approve the project. The City Council’s decision was based upon the
findings contained in the attached Statement of Official Action.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Statement of Official Action.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Jay Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Kimberly Christensen, AICP, Senior 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, 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.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
2
August 8, 2000 Date.
Approved based on the following findings and subject to the
conditions below.
X
Denied.
Other.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTION:
August 8, 2000
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. 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.
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. The evidence submitted to the City Council indicated that the project, as designed
and presented to the Planning Commission, 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 included
mezzanine levels, 42-inch high parapet walls and ten mechanical room enclosures
that would 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. The applicant submitted evidence at the hearing depicting a 39-foot
building without the 9’ high rooftop mechanical enclosures and a dropped roofline of
28’ in height along the front two units facing Sixteenth Street. The modifications
were not substantial enough to reduce the massing and scale in context with the
neighborhood.
3
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. 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.
4
l) The proposed use will not result in an over concentration of such uses in the
immediate vicinity.
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 massing effect of the proposed two-story buildings and mezzanines, and
rooftop mechanical enclosures constructed on two contiguous lots is not compatible
or in keeping with the adjacent one and two story structures developed on single
lots or with the developments in the surrounding neighborhood 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 and public testimony 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 (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
th
neighborhood will be diminished by increased traffic and congestion along 15
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 the north, which is two 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. The evidence
presented at the hearing indicating a modified design with no 9’ high mechanical
enclosures and a dropped roofline to 28’ in height along the two front residential
units facing Sixteenth Street, were not substantial enough to find that the building’s
mass and scale is compatible to the scale of the neighborhood.
c) Objective 1.10: “Expand the opportunity for residential land use while protecting the
scale and character of existing neighborhoods.” The height and mass of the
proposed project is larger than the existing structures in the immediate
5
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
evidence presented at the hearing indicating a modified design with no 9’ high
mechanical enclosures and a dropped roofline to 28’ in height along the two front
residential units facing Sixteenth Street, were not substantial enough to find that the
building’s mass and scale is compatible to the scale of the neighborhood. 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.
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 (j) 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.
6
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.
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.” 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
th
neighborhood will be diminished by increased traffic and congestion along 15
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. In addition,
the proposed modifications to eliminate the 9’ high rooftop mechanical enclosures
and dropped roofline to a height of 28’ along the front two residential units facing
Sixteenth Street were not substantial enough to find that the building’s massing and
scale is compatible with the adjacent developments and developments in the
neighborhood.
c) Objective 1.10: Expand the opportunity for residential land use while protecting the
scale and character of existing neighborhoods. The height 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
7
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. In
addition, the proposed modifications to eliminate the 9’ high rooftop mechanical
enclosures and dropped roofline to a height of 28’ along the front two residential
units facing Sixteenth Street were not substantial enough to find that the building’s
massing and scale is compatible with the adjacent developments and developments
in the neighborhood.
d) 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. The bulk and height of the project will
impair light, air, view, and enjoyment of the adjacent properties, and would
negatively affect the character and the one to two-story scale of the neighborhood.
e) 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.
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
8
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 that the
level of the re-design that would be required to address the adverse impacts presented
to the City Council via public testimony the design is too substantial there is not
feasible method to satisfactory or avoid these impacts other than disapproval of this
project is so substantial that the re-deisgn would change the fundamental character of
the project to substantiate a new project.
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.
S/__________________________ September 11, 2002
MARIA M. STEWART, City Clerk Date
9