SR-112503-6A
'" ta llI'M)L
'{)A
PCD:SF:JT:AS:JL:MM:F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\STRPT\2003\03APP015.doc NOV .2 5 2003
Council Mtg: November 25,2003 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal 03APP015 of the Planning Commission's Approval of Design
Compatibility Permit 02DCP006 and Resolution Adopting Final Negative
Declaration 021S-006 Located at 1311 Centinela, to Allow the Construction
of a Two-Story, Eight Unit Townhouse Style Condominium Project with
Eighteen Parking Spaces Located in a Subterranean Garage. Applicant:
Centinela Homes, LLC; Appellant: Keva Rosenfeld.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning
Commission's approval of the Design Compatibility Permit and Negative Declaration to
allow the construction of an eight unit townhouse style condominium project with
eighteen parking spaces located in a subterranean garage. The Planning Commission,
at its October 1, 2003 meeting, approved the project with revised conditions that
modified the design of the proposed project along the north elevation. The appeal
statement is contained in Attachment B and the three Planning Commission staff
reports including environmental analysis are contained in Attachments C, D and E,
respectively.
BACKGROUND
The applicant proposes to construct a two-story, maximum 30-foot tall, townhouse style
courtyard condominium development having eight units with an eighteen (18) space
subterranean parking garage accessed from Franklin Court. The Planning Commission
1
~A
NOV 2 5 2003
On October 14, 2003, the Planning Commission's determination on the Design
Compatibility Permit was appealed based on concerns related to the overall mass of the
proposed structure, its compatibility with neighborhood improvements, and privacy
impacts to the northern property owners. The appeal statement is contained in
Attachment B. The appeal period for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map expired on
October , 2003 without any appeal
APPEAL ANALYSIS
Throughout the public hearings, some area residents expressed concern regarding the
design and overall mass of the building. The Planning Commission deliberated on these
2
and associated issues of light, air and privacy, as well as the structure's overall
compatibility with the character of the existing neighborhood. In its deliberation, the
Planning Commission imposed additional conditions to effectively mitigate these
concerns, Specifically, the Planning Commission required three of the four units
adjacent to the northern side property line to be lowered in height. As conditioned, the
exterior wall height of this portion of the structure may not exceed 23 feet, as measured
from existing grade on the neighbors' side of the property line. Another condition
required the relocation of the two proposed roof decks and spas toward the interior
courtyard, or complete removal of this amenity. Other privacy related conditions
included restrictions on the type of air conditioning equipment used and enhanced
landscaping at the northern side yard to visually buffer adjacent properties
The appellant asserts that the project remains inconsistent with improvements in the
general vicinity, compromises the character and integrity of the neighborhood and
continues to result in privacy impacts to the northern properties Specifically, the
appellant cites the narrowness of the lot and the unusually steep topography as
contributing factors to the overly massive design. Moreover, the appellant contends that
the structure's three story appearance and roof deck spas are not harmonious with the
neighborhood and cause significant privacy impacts the northern neighbors.
Staff has reviewed the appeal statement and administrative record for the subject
project. Staff believes that the conditions of approval address the appellant's concerns
and fully mitigate privacy impacts. Over the course of the public hearings, the project
3
has been reduced in height to address previous Planning Commission concerns. At the
last hearing, a condition was added that further reduces the height of the three units
located adjacent to the interior northern property line. The effect of this condition will
cause the removal of another mezzanine, two of which were previously eliminated at the
Planning Commission's request, as well as an overall lowering of the building at the side
and rear portions of the structure. Moreover, this condition requires the height of the
northern exterior building wall be measured from existing grade on the northern
properties. It was specifically imposed to address massing concerns related to the
parcel's steep topography, which is approximately 17 feet.
The appellant's contention regarding rooftop spas is moot. As conditioned by the
Planning Commission, rooftop decks must be eliminated, or relocated to the other side
of the building. This condition improves the northern neighbors' privacy by focusing this
outdoor activity area toward the interior courtyard, or requires its complete removal.
There remain, however, balconies adjacent to the northern property line; these features
are relatively low and maintain significant sideyard setbacks. Further addressing the
privacy concern, the Planning Commission imposed restrictions on the exterior
mechanical equipment to reduce noise related impacts, and required a landscape buffer
that will protect the privacy of each property, but not block natural light.
As for massing related concerns, staff supports the Planning Commission's
determination that the structure is compatible with other area improvements. The
proposed design, as conditioned, provides an appropriate transition to adjacent
4
structures, incorporates significant building articulation and setbacks, and reinforces the
pedestrian-oriented environment. While there may be opportunities for further aesthetic
improvements, staff believes the Architectural Review Board can adequately address
any remaining issues.
Conclusion
The Planning Commission deliberated on the subject development at three noticed
public hearings. The project was approved based on findings and subject to additional
conditions. The conditions effectively reduced the overall height of the structure and
increased privacy between the proposed development and adjacent improvements. As
conditioned, the project is compatible with existing structures in the general vicinity.
Staff analyzed the appeal statements, but concluded that the Planning Commission's
action sufficiently mitigates the stated concerns.
CEQA STATUS
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15063,
an Initial Study was conducted and a Draft Negative Declaration prepared that provided
sufficient analysis to ensure compliance with CEQA. The Draft Negative Declaration
was circulated for a 30-day public review period and no comments were received. At
the request of the Planning Commission at the May 21, 2003 meeting, additional
shade/shadow analysis for the proposed redesigned project was conducted, The Initial
Study/Negative Declaration and additional shade/shadow analysis concluded that the
5
project would have a less than significant impact, or no impact in all environmental
study areas.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Sections 9.04.20.22.050 and 9.20.14.010, notice of the
public hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of
property located within a 500 foot radius of the project at least ten consecutive calendar
days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment A.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council take the following actions
1) Approve Resolution Adopting the Final Negative Declaration; and
2) Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Design
Compatibility Permit 02-006 and Final Negative Declaration (02IS-006) based
upon the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
DESIGN COMPATIBILITY PERMIT FJNDI~_0S
1 The physical location, size, massing and placement of proposed structures on
the site and the location of proposed amenities within the project are compatible
with and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods in that the
project creates a transition between the two-story residential structures located
adjacent to the subject property on Centinela Avenue with its symmetrical
setbacks and articulated massing that sets back the upper stories from both the
front and the side, exceeding the development standards set forth in Ordinance
2042 for additional side stepbacks above 13 feet in height. The project provides
articulation that allows light and air to the two-story single-family structure to the
6
south and the two-story, multi-family structure, the two-story single-family
structure, and the one-story single-family structure to the north. In addition, the
project is designed to be compatible with the other structures on the street
through the use of similar materials, stucco, and stepped down massing along
the front fac;ade and stepped back massing along the side elevations.
2, The physical location, size, massing and placement of proposed structures on
the site, and parking access and the location of proposed amenities within the
project would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience or general welfare in that the building size, placement, and massing
is compatible with the majority of the structures within the neighborhood block.
The additional side stepbacks above 13 feet from ANG exceed the zoning
requirements and the open space and landscaping meets the zoning code
requirements. The setbacks, stepbacks, and side-yard landscaping will ensure
adequate light and air for the adjacent residential structures. Each unit has
access to direct light via windows. Parking is provided in compliance with the
zoning requirements, is accessible from the Franklin Court alley, and provides
the hazardous visual obstructions clearance to provide safe ingress and egress
for vehicles. The project is accessible from street level along Centinela Avenue.
3, The rights-of-way can accommodate autos and pedestrians, including adequate
parking and access, in that there are pedestrian entrances from Centinela
Avenue, the garage, and vehicular access from the alley. Parking is provided in
compliance with the zoning requirements and provides hazardous visual
obstruction clearance to provide safe ingress and egress for vehicles. Access to
the off street parking, circulation, and the parking plan were reviewed and
approved by the City's Transportation Management Division.
4 The health and safety services (police, fire etc.) and public infrastructure (e.g.,
utilities) is sufficient to accommodate the new development, in that the proposed
development is located within an urbanized area that is already adequately
served by existing City infrastructure. No new safety services or public
infrastructure will be required by this project.
5, Reasonable mitigation measures have been included for all adverse impacts
identified in an Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report, in that the proposed
development was reviewed consistent with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and an Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared. The
Negative Declaration did not identify any environmental impacts associated with
the project and therefore, no mitigation measures were incorporated.
6, The proposed use conforms precisely to the minimum requirements outlined in
Section 9.04.16, Subchapter 9.04.16.01.030, in that the proposed project, as
conditioned below, and shown on the plans submitted by the applicant,
demonstrates compliance with all applicable provisions of the City of Santa
Monica Zoning Ordinance.
7
DESIGN COMPATIBILITY PERMIT CONDITIONS
Plans
1 This approval is for those plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on
October 01, 2003, a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the City
Planning Division. Project development shall be consistent with such plans,
except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval.
2, The Plans shall comply with all other provisions of Chapter 1, Article IX of the
Municipal Code, (Zoning Ordinance) and all other pertinent ordinances and
General Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica.
3, Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Transportation Planning Division.
4, Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of
Planning. A significant change in the approved concept shall be subject to
Planning Commission Review. Construction shall be in conformance with the
plans submitted or as modified by the Planning Commission, Architectural
Review Board or Director of Planning.
Architectural Review Board
5. Prior to consideration of the project by the Architectural Review Board, the
applicant shall review disabled access requirements with the Building and
Safety Division and make any necessary changes in the project design to
achieve compliance with such requirements. The Architectural Review Board,
in its review, shall pay particular attention to the aesthetic, landscaping, and
setback impacts of any ramps or other features necessitated by accessibility
requirements.
6, Prior to submittal of landscape plans for Architectural Review Board approval,
the applicant shall contact the Department of Environmental and Public Works
Management regarding urban runoff plans and calculations.
7. The existing mature trees shall be preserved in their present location on site,
relocated to a specific location on site or replaced with specimen trees to the
satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board.
8, Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash enclosures, and signage
shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Board.
9, The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to
the project's pedestrian orientation and amenities; scale and articulation of
8
design elements; exterior colors, textures and materials; window treatment;
glazing; and landscaping.
10, Construction period signage shall be subject to the approval of the Architectural
Review Board.
11 Landscaping plans shall comply with Subchapter 5B (Landscaping Standards)
of the zoning ordinance including use of water-conserving landscaping
materials, landscape maintenance and other standards contained in the
Subchapter.
12. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall be screened in
accordance with SMMC Section 9.04.10.02.130-9.04.10.02.150. Refuse areas
shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site need, including recycling. The
Architectural Review Board in its review shall pay particular attention to the
screening of such areas and equipment. Any rooftop mechanical equipment
shall be minimized in height and area, and shall be located in such a way as to
minimize noise and visual impacts to surrounding properties. Unless otherwise
approved by the Architectural Review Board, rooftop mechanical equipment
shall be located at least five feet from the edge of the roof. Except for solar hot
water heaters, no residential water heaters shall be located on the roof.
13 No gas or electric meters shall be located within the required front or street side
yard setback areas. The Architectural Review Board in its review shall pay
particular attention to the location and screening of such meters.
Fees
14. A Park and Recreation Facilities Tax of $200.00 per residential unit shall be due
and payable at the time of issuance of a building permit for the construction or
placement of the residential unit(s) on the subject lot, per and subject to the
provisions of Section 6.80.010 et seq. of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
Demolition
15, Until such time as the demolition is undertaken, and unless the structure is
currently in use, the existing structure shall be maintained and secure by
boarding up all openings, erecting a security fence, and removing all debris,
bushes and planting that inhibit the easy surveillance of the property to the
satisfaction of the Building and Safety Officer and the Fire Department. Any
landscaping material remaining shall be watered and maintained until demolition
occu rs.
16, Unless otherwise approved by the Community and Cultural Services
Department and the Planning Division, at the time of demolition, any street trees
9
shall be protected from damage, death, or removal per the requirements of
SMMC Chapter 7.40.
Immediately after demolition (and during construction), a security fence, the
height of which shall be the maximum permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, shall
be maintained around the perimeter of the lot. The lot shall be kept clear of all
trash, weeds, etc.
18, Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, applicant shall prepare for Building
Division approval a rodent and pest control plan to insure that demolition and
construction activities at the site do not create pest control impacts on the
project neighborhood.
19 No demolition of buildings or structure built 40 years of age or older shall be
permitted until the end of a 60-day review period by the Landmarks Commission
to determine whether an application for landmark designation shall be filed. If
an application for landmark designation is filed, no demolition shall be approved
until a final determination is made by the Landmarks Commission on the
application.
20. The applicant shall submit a report from an industrial hygienist to be reviewed
and approved as to content and form by the Environmental and Public Works
Management/Environmental Programs Division. The report shall consist of a
hazardous materials survey for the structure proposed demolition. The report
shall include a section on asbestos and in accordance with the South Coast
AQMD Rule 1403, the asbestos survey shall be performed by a State Certified
Asbestos Consultant (CAC). The report shall include a section on lead, which
shall be performed by a State Certified Lead Inspector/Assessor. Additional
hazardous materials to be considered by the Industrial Hygienist shall include:
mercury (in thermostats, switches, fluorescent lights); polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) (including light ballasts), fuels, pesticides, batteries. The report shall
include a plan to abate such substances prior to receiving a demolition permit.
Construction
Unless otherwise approved by the Department of Environmental and Public
Works Management, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable during the
grading and construction phase of the project.
22 Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need replacing or
removal as a result of the project as determined by the Department of
Environmental and Public Works Management shall be reconstructed to the
satisfaction of the Department of Environmental and Public Works
Management. Approval for this work shall be obtained from the Department of
10
Environmental and Public Works Management prior to issuance of the building
permits.
23 Vehicles hauling dirt or other construction debris from the site shall cover any
open load with a tarpaulin or other secure covering to minimize dust emissions.
Immediately after commencing dirt removal from the site, the general contractor
shall provide the City of Santa Monica with written certification that all trucks
leaving the site are covered in accordance with this condition of approval.
24. Street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as required in a manner
consistent with the City's Community Forest Management Plan 2000, per the
specifications of the Open Space Management Division of the Community and
Cultural Service Department and the City's Tree Code (SMMC Chapter 7.40).
No street trees shall be removed without the approval of the Open Space
Management Division.
25, A construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by the applicant for
approval by the Department of Environmental and Public Works Management
prior to issuance of a building permit. The approved mitigation plan shall be
posted on the site for the duration of the project construction and shall be
produced upon request. As applicable, this plan shall 1) Specify the names,
addresses, telephone numbers and business license numbers of all contractors
and subcontractors as well as the developer and architect; 2) Describe how
demolition of any existing structures is to be accomplished; 3) Indicate where
any cranes are to be located for erection/construction; 4) Describe how much of
the public street, alleyway, or sidewalk is proposed to be used in conjunction
with construction; 5) Set forth the extent and nature of any pile-driving
operations; 6) Describe the length and number of any tiebacks which must
extend under the property of other persons; 7) Specify the nature and extent of
any dewatering and its effect on any adjacent buildings; 8) Describe anticipated
construction-related truck routes, number of truck trips, hours of hauling and
parking location; 9) Specify the nature and extent of any helicopter hauling; 10)
State whether any construction activity beyond normally permitted hours is
proposed; 11) Describe any proposed construction noise mitigation measures;
12) Describe construction-period security measures including any fencing,
lighting, and security personnel; 13) Provide a drainage plan; 14) Provide a
construction-period parking plan which shall minimize use of public streets for
parking; 15) List a designated on-site construction manager.
26, Developer shall prepare a notice, subject to the review by the Director of
Planning and Community Development, that lists all construction mitigation
requirements, permitted hours of construction, and identifies a contact person at
City Hall as well as the developer who will respond to complaints related to the
proposed construction. The notice shall be mailed to property owners and
residents within a 200-foot radius from the subject site at least five (5) days prior
to the start of construction.
11
27. A sign shall be posted on the property in a manner consistent with the public
hearing sign requirements which shall identify the address and phone number of
the owner and/or applicant for the purposes of responding to questions and
complaints during the construction period. Said sign shall also indicate the
hours of permissible construction work.
28, A copy of these conditions shall be posted in an easily visible and accessible
location at all times during construction at the project site. The pages shall be
laminated or otherwise protected to ensure durability of the copy.
Environmental Mitigation
29. Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures are required on all new development and
remodeling where plumbing is to be added. (Maximum 1.6 gallon toilets and 1.0
gallon urinals and low flow shower head.)
30 Parking areas and structures and other facilities generating wastewater with
significant oil and grease content are required to pretreat these wastes before
discharging to the City sewer or storm drain system. Pretreatment will require
that a clarifier or oil/water separator be installed and maintained on site. In
cases where settleable solids are present (or expected) in greater amounts than
floatable oil and grease, a clarifier unit will be required. In cases where the
opposite waste characteristics are present, an oil/water separator with
automatic oil draw-off will be required instead. The General Services
Department will set specific requirements. Building Permit plans shall show the
required installation.
Miscellaneous DCP Conditions
31 The building address shall be painted on the roof of the building and shall
measure four feet by eight feet (32 square feet).
32. If any archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation or construction,
work in the affected area shall be suspended and a recognized specialist shall
be contacted to conduct a survey of the affected area at project's owner's
expense. A determination shall then be made by the Director of Planning to
determine the significance of the survey findings and appropriate actions and
requirements, if any, to address such findings.
33, Street and/or alley lighting shall be provided on public rights of way adjacent to
the project if and as needed per the specifications and with the approval of the
Department of Environmental and Public Works.
12
34, No fence, gate, or wall within the required front yard setback, inclusive of any
subterranean garage slab and fencing, gate, or railing on top thereof, shall
exceed a height of 42" above actual grade of the property.
35, A security gate shall be provided across the opening to the subterranean
garage. If any guest parking space is located in the subterranean garage, the
security gate shall be equipped with an electronic or other system which will
open the gate to provide visitors with vehicular access to the garage without
leaving their vehicles. The security gate shall receive approval of the Police and
Fire Departments prior to issuance of a building permit.
36 Mechanical equipment shall not be located on the side of any building, which is
adjacent to a residential building on the adjoining lot. Roof locations may be
used when the mechanical equipment is installed within a sound-rated parapet
enclosure.
37. Final approval of any mechanical equipment installation will require a noise test
in compliance with SMMC Section 4.12.040. Equipment for the test shall be
provided by the owner or contractor and the test shall be conducted by the
owner or contractor. A copy of the noise test results on mechanical equipment
shall be submitted to the Community Noise Officer for review to ensure that
noise levels do not exceed maximum allowable levels for the applicable noise
zone.
38, Final building plans submitted for approval of a building permit shall include on
the plans a list of all permanent mechanical equipment to be placed indoors,
which may be heard outdoors.
39. No furniture shall be permitted on the rooftop decks above the second floor. This
condition shall also be reflected in the CC & R's.
Validity of Permits
40 In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval
of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of
occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied.
41 Within ten days of City Planning Division transmittal of the Statement of Official
Action, project applicant shall sign and return a copy of the Statement of Official
Action prepared by the Planning Division, agreeing to the Conditions of approval
and acknowledging that failure to comply with such conditions shall constitute
grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval. By signing same,
13
applicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights applicant may possess
regarding said conditions. The signed Statement shall be returned to the
Planning Division. Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute grounds
for potential permit revocation.
42, This determination shall not become effective for a period of fourteen days from
the date of determination or, if appealed, until a final determination is made on
the appeal. Any appeal must be made in the form required by the Zoning
Administrator. The approval of this permit shall expire if the rights granted are
not exercised within two years from the permit's effective date. Exercise of
rights shall mean issuance of a building permit to commence construction.
However, the permit shall also expire if the building permit expires, if final
inspection is not completed or a Certificate of Occupancy is not issued within
the time periods specified in SMMC Section 8.08.060. One twelve-month
extension may be permitted if approved by the Director of Planning. Applicant
is on notice that time extensions may not be granted if development standards
or the development process relevant to the project have changed since project
approval.
43 Within thirty (30) days after final approval of the project, a sign shall be posted
on site stating the date and nature of the approval. The sign shall be posted in
accordance with the Zoning Administrator guidelines and shall remain in place
until a building permit is issued for the project. The sign shall be removed
promptly when a building permit is issued for the project or upon expiration of
the Design Compatibility Permit.
44. Applicant is advised that projects in the California Coastal Zone may need
approval of the California Coastal Commission prior to issuance of any building
permits by the City of Santa Monica. Applicant is responsible for obtaining any
such permits.
Monitoring of Conditions
45. Pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the
City Planning Division will coordinate a monitoring and reporting program
regarding any required changes to the project made in conjunction with project
approval and any conditions of approval, including those conditions intended to
mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. This program shall
include, but is not limited to, ensuring that the City Planning Division itself and
other City divisions and departments such as the Building and Safety Division,
the Department of Environmental and Public Works, the Fire Department, the
Police Department, the Planning and Community Development Department and
the Finance Department are aware of project requirements which must be
satisfied prior to issuance of a Building Permit, Certificate of Occupancy, or
other permit, and that other responsible agencies are also informed of
conditions relating to their responsibilities. Project owner shall demonstrate
14
compliance with conditions of approval in a written report submitted to the
Planning Director and Building Officer prior to issuance of a Building Permit or
Certificate of Occupancy, and, as applicable, provide periodic reports regarding
compliance with such conditions.
Special Conditions
46, Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and as required by the
Department of Environmental and Public Works, the owner shall dedicate the
rear 2.5' of the property for future alley widening to the satisfaction of the
Department of Environmental and Public Works.
47 Pursuant to Ordinance 1589 (CCS), prior to receipt of the final permit necessary
to demolish, convert, or otherwise remove a controlled rental unit(s) from the
housing market, the owner of the property shall first secure a removal permit
under Section 1803(t), an exemption determination, an approval of a vested
rights claim from the Rent Control Board, or have withdrawn the controlled
rental unit(s) pursuant to the provisions of the Ellis Act.
48 Prior to submittal to the Architectural Review Board, the north elevation of the
project shall be reduced in height and mass. These changes in height and
mass pertain to the northern elevation only. The heights of the units along the
northern property line (Units 3, 5, and 7) shall not exceed twenty-three feet in
height from the existing grade at the property line of the adjacent northern
properties. Unit 1 complies with this requirement and may remain as designed.
Unit 5 shall be used as the performance standard for Unit 3, and the two units
shall be at the same height. Unit 3 shall be reduced in height, which will include
the removal of the mezzanine level. Unit 7, which is located above the semi-
subterranean garage, must be approximately twenty-three feet in height from
the existing grade of the adjacent property.
49, The masonry wall adjacent to the parcel located on Arizona Avenue and
Franklin Court shall not exceed eight feet in height. An additional four feet of
wall may be permitted, but must be setback a minimum of two feet in order to
create a terraced appearance to the wall. As measured from the northwest
corner of the subject parcel, the total minimum height of the wall shall not
exceed twelve feet.
50, Prior to submittal to Architectural Review Board, the applicant shall either
remove the roof patios from Units 5 and 6 or shall reorient the roof patios to face
towards the interior courtyard. Roof level spas shall only be permitted if the roof
patios have been redesigned to face towards the interior courtyard.
51 All air conditioners shall have a minimum Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio
(SEER) of 14.
15
52. The landscaping along the northern property line shall be designed to provide
an adequate buffer between the project and adjacent neighboring properties,
but shall not block natural sunlight to the adjacent neighbors when fully mature.
Affordable Housinq Obliqation (effective Julv 21. 1998)
53. Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter 9.56, the project is
subject to the City's Affordable Housing Production Program which requires an
eight-unit development to provide either one very low cost affordable unit(s) or
two low cost affordable unit(s) on-site (SMMC Section 9.56.050), provide the
affordable units off-site (SMMC Section 9.56.060), pay an affordable housing
fee (SMMC Section 9.56.070), acquire land for affordable housing (SMMC
Section 9.56.080). The developer has elected to satisfy the Affordable Housing
Production requirement through payment of an affordable housing fee. The
project's affordable housing fee is based on the following formula:
Floor Area (as defined by SMMC Section 9.04.02.030.315) x $11.01 x
applicable %. The project's floor area as shown on the plans dated 07/18/2003
is 12,426 square feet. The project's affordable housing fee based on this floor
area would be $137,810.26. The fee will be recalculated prior to payment based
on the actual building floor area of the project as constructed. The fee must be
paid in full prior to the City granting any approval for the occupancy of the
project.
Prepared by:
Suzanne Frick, Director
Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Senior Planner
Marika A. Modugno, AICP, Associate Planner
City Planning Division
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachments: A. Public Notice
B. Appeal Statement
~ Planning Commission staff report dated May 21,2003
~0\f\{)1 @ Planning Commission staff report dated August 06, 2003
(ff!-- 'It' /g! Planning Commission staff report dated October 01, 2003 _. 4."~
(\.....{'f\~~J r F. Resolution Adopting Negative Declaration ~ ~lJ'h 1.Jf7 -#q1Ull~
~-1~Y ~~ ~. Negative Declaration a.nd Technical Memorandum for Additional
,...,('\ .! Shade Shadow AnalYSIS
V' H. Project Plans l-IO'f WAtl..A6Lt: ~~ ~I./.,y _ ~};--~ I?:.L, /'/"'01/) ..
I c.c: Vt/ y ~G ofF;~
16
A11~u/tIrnErJl upIi I)
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT:
Appeal 03APP015
1311 Centinela Avenue
APPLICANT: Centinela Townhomes, LLC
PROPERTY OWNER: Centinela Townhomes, LLC
APPELLANT: Keva Rosenfeld
A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request:
Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a Design Compatibility Permit 02DCP006 to allow the
construction of a new two-story, eight-unit townhouse style condominium with 18 subterranean parking
spaces located in the R2 Low Density Multiple Family Residential District. The Council will also consider
adopting a Negative Declaration for the proposed project in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 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: 03APP015
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 Marika A.
Modugno at (310) 458-8341, or bye-mail at marika-modugno@santa-monica.org. The Zoning Ordinance
is available at the Planning Counter during business hours and on the City's web site at www.santa-
monica.orQ.
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.
ESPANOL
Esto es una noticia de una audiencia publica para revisar applicaci6nes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa
Monica. Si deseas mas informaci6n, favor de lIamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la Divisi6n de Planificaci6n
al numero (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~.~~~
AMANDA SCHACHT
Acting Planning Manager
F :\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCI L \NOTICES\03APP015.doc
18
MatMrYBn+
Llf) \J
City of
Santa Monica
Department of Planning and Community Development
Planning and Zoning Division
(310) 458-8341
APPEAL FORM
Date Filed
Received By
Receipt No.
e._k:t?~
C>~~
BRrr WI~S (l~' c.&j-r"lS'lA) 'N\v.=t w.~~ r1')\~ ~~\b1A)
~~~I \4\S1-\1\tJA'JA9-A (\3'~ ~"'€\..I\) \~~ '(fl"~'I t'~ll't ^-t.J~)
Nam~ It-f\lA eo~~l...O ~ 12.2..\\ ML\~)
Address ~~rl--.y A~(~t\ Mt"
Contact Person \Lf\lA ~Os€Nf€U) Phone SIll) t2-\S .(h~'1-
Please describe the project and decision to be appealed '3 - 1...f\)8- I ~... \)tJ I'" 1'l5\.)J N +-%~~ \J'1'l"\-\ ~ "N?~
I':t f.{ 'IB>of" . .
---
I -
Case Number ~d-.~c. "tiC) b I tl?TW\ ~D()1-
Address \ 3 I \ c..~'ilrh8-A . A\JE
Applicant CEY\"N8-A ~tJ U~.s~ I l..'- '-
Original Hearing Date v~'t ~)~ ~~ '5
Original Action \/AQ...\ tlf E'/\ll~
t
~ f\~Q.\N~ ~ 1).([ A-~~'Th<, ~~ ~\ 1\IQ.SJJMCu~ \ C) O~ ~ ~ \~ \",CtWStS'T'OJ\
wrm Il\t C.l-l~A-ctF't_ ~O f~~\l..\1i ~ ~ f\.\FIC.{~l.\I2-~{> ~o -f\f1'> l?\!~f'O~J\:
""'JC _.~"
~- . .. R=a... '\l\1f\ ~~ ~~\L~I~i\ ~e;. ~1 "t\T r.J vJ~ J~ S~ I)\OW\tA
NBCIt9t:.<l. ~~ A.-^J~ '\\-\1\-1- ~ c~~V-~ ~1~6\J S~,~'- "f \.JV\C1\-m M~ ('OVI.-1ffLlM11~----C
,
~ irn ff' E))l~ ~\8<9ItRcQ.:s ?Q../'\JAc- '1.
-- -- -.
- - - --.....
_______ _::=0-..
Please provide two self-addressed, stamped, letter-sized envelopes.
Signature _ G. ~ ~ QQ
Date
1(j~/Y~b3
20
ATTACHMENT G
Negative Declaration and Technical Memorandum for
Additional Shade Shadow Analysis
[,' 86
("
Technical Memorandum
FROM:
RE:
Marika Modugno, Associate Planner, City of Santa Monica Planning Division DATE: July 24, 2003
Brad Misner, AICP, Associate Planner, City of Santa Monica Planning Div.
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Senior Planner, City of Santa Monica Planning Division
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner, City of Santa Monica Planning Div.
Madonna Marcelo, Senior Planner
1311-1315 CENllNELA AVENUE TOWN HOMES --. ADDITIONAL SHADOW ANALYSIS
TO:
CC:
INTRODUCTION
On May 21, 2003, the proposed project was brought forth to the City of Santa Monica Planning
Commission for approval and adoption of the Negative Declaration. However, the Planning
Commission expressed concerns regarding potential shadow impacts of the proposed project on
immediately adjacent residential properties to the north. In response to the Planning Commission's
concerns, PCR Services conducted an additional shadow analysis to provide a more in-depth
evaluation of shadow impacts resulting from the proposed project. In addition, the analysis
considered potential shadows cast by the proposed housing development based on a revised project
design, which reduced the building height, increased second story setbacks, and revised building
articulation from the original proposal. Existing shadows were illustrated to characterize current
conditions on and around the project site.
METHODOLOGY
Several factors were considered in developing the existing and proposed shadow diagrams, including
the distance and location of adjacent residential properties, the height and mass of existing and
proposed structures, and the building articulation provided by the proposed project. The shadow
diagrams were prepared using a natural light rendering software to simulate shadows impacts based
on a number of parameters, including, but not limited to, the sun's position, the time of day, and
the time of year. The rendering software is based on a two-dimensional plane, which does not allow
for consideration of structures and/or objects that may block shadow paths. In addition, the
software does not account for topography or differences in elevations within a property or between
properties. Therefore, the rendering provides a diagram of the shadows as they are cast in their
entire length regardless of the presence of intervening structures and/or objects, or topography. &
such, the analysis presents a worst-case scenario with regard to shadows.
Shadow patterns were calculated for the following periods:
· Summer Solstice: June 21,9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. (see Exhibit A); and
· Winter Solstice: December 21,9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. (see Exhibit B).
~)'-87
Memorandum
RE: 1311-1315 CENTINELA AVENUE TOWNHOMES -- ADDITIONAL
SHADOW ANALYSIS
These periods were selected since they represent the portion of the day during which maximum
seasonal shading occurs and could be expected to be of concern to most people. Using the summer
and winter solstice results in showing collectively the annual shadow pattern from the proposed
project. The winter solstice is the shortest day of the year and represents the longest shadows that
would occur from the project. The summer solstice is the longest day of the year and represents the
shortest shadows that would occur.
Topography can be an important factor when considering the impact of shadows because large
differentials in elevation between the source of the shadow and adjacent uses will affect the length of
the shadows cast. Shadows cast by buildings on land that is elevated above surrounding areas will
extend into the surrounding areas to a greater extent than they will if there were no elevation
differential, and vice-versa. Shadows cast upslope are shortened, while shadows cast downslope are
lengthened. However, as indicated above, the software used for the shadow modeling does not
account for topographical differences between the properties.
A site reconnaissance was conducted to record site conditions, including topography (i.e., variations
in site elevation), setbacks of structures on the adjacent properties, sun-sensitive outdoor areas,
building heights, building orientation, and roof types (e.g., flat/sloped and angles). In addition, the
extent of landscaping, type and denseness, were also noted (see photographs in Exhibit A). While
the existing trees and landscaping were observed to contribute to some degree of shading in the area,
existing landscaping was not considered in this analysis to present the worst-case conditions (i.e.,
unfiltered light and solid shadows). However, the existing landscaping is described below under
existing conditions.
ExISTING CONDmONS
Based on the site reconnaissance, the setbacks of the structures on the adjacent properties indicated
on the project site plan submitted to the City were greater than the distances observed. The setbacks
for the structures on adjacent properties are less than three feet from the common property line, as
illustrated in the site plan used for the shadow analysis (see Exhibits A and B). In addition, the
outdoor area between the two-story single-family structure and the two-story multi-family structure
is covered with a trellis-type structure (see top photographs in Exhibit B). Therefore, this area is
currently shaded. Another outdoor area between the two-story single-family structure and the one-
story single-family residence was noted. This area contains an outdoor patio and a yard, which is
landscaped with large trees and potted plants (see bottom right photograph in Exhibit B).
Some of the existing trees along Centinela Avenue were estimated to reach a maximum height of 50
feet with canopies that widen to a maximum of 30 feet in diameter (see photographs in Exhibit A).
Some of the larger trees on-site and on the adjacent properties to the north were estimated to be
between 18 and 20 feet in height with canopies of approximately 10 to 15 feet in diameter. In
PCR Services Corporation
Page 2
July 24,2003
4Illa
.,
Memorandum
RE: 1311-1315 CENTINELA AVENUE T01NI~HOMES -- ADDITIONAL
SHADOW ANALYSIS
addition, the project site and adjacent properties slope down from Centinela Avenue to Franklin
Coun by approximately 14.5 feet. The existing rear unit (1311 Centinela Avenue, Apanment C)
closer to Arizona Avenue, while only approximately 18 feet in height, is situated at a higher elevation
than the adjacent single-family residence. Therefore, as shown in the top right photograph in
Exhibit A, this rear unit is considerably higher (approximately 10 feet) than the adjacent single-
family residence located at the southeast corner of Arizona Avenue and Franklin Coun.
Consequently, areas immediately north of the project site are currently experiencing morning to
mid-day shading from existing structures on-site and existing landscaping and vegetation on and off
the project site. In particular, the single-family residence at the corner of Arizona Avenue and
Franklin Court currently experiences shading for more than three hours, especially during the
WInter.
THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE
The issue of shade/shadow pertains to the blockage of direct sunlight by on-site buildings, which
affects adjacent property. While shading can be an important environmental issue, the CEQA
Guidelines do not address visual quality impacts with respect to shadows. However, shading is
considered imponant because the users or occupants of certain land uses, such as residences, have
expectations for direct light and warmth from the sun. Such land uses are termed "shadow-
sensitive." Therefore, the purpose of considering shadows is to identify areas that would be
impacted by shadows. Such areas include those that may be used for solar energy, such as a rooftop
or south-facing fas:ade, and outdoor areas that serve as passive or active recreational areas. However,
it should be recognized that the significance of shade and shadow effects is somewhat subjective and
depends on a number of factors, including the presence of south-facing walls and rooftop locations
where solar equipment may be installed, the size of outdoor usable space, receptor sensitivity to
sunlight, receptor preference (i.e., some receptors may prefer to stay indoors or spend a greater
portion of daylight hours outdoors to enhance their daily activity), climatic conditions (i.e., some
receptor may prefer shade and shadow during warmer weather), and the intensity of shading.
Since the CEQA Guidelines do not provide a specific significance threshold, the following factors
will be used to assess the potential impacts of the proposed project:
· Affected land use (necessity and critical imponance of direct sunlight for the use);
Duration (hours per day the use would be shadowed);
Time of day (critical time period for direct sunlight);
Season (time of year the use would be shadowed); and
Pre-existing condition (shadow conditions due to existing buildings, landscaping, or
other features).
PCR Services Corporation
Page 3
July 24, 2003
}I.'89
Memorandum
RE: 1311-1315 CENTlNELAAVENUE TOWNHOMES -- ADDITIONAL
SHADOW ANALYSIS
Based on these factors, a project impact would normally be considered significant if shadow-sensitive
uses would be shaded by project-related structures for more than three hours between the hours of
9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. between late October and early April, or for more than four hours between
the hours of9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. between early April and late October.
This threshold is consistent with other environmental documents reviewed and adopted by the City.
SHADOW ANALYSIS
The revised project would result in buildings with a maximum height of 30 feet, which would be a
change from the existing one-story bungalows that are approximately 12 to 18 feet in height. The
30-foot maximum height is limited to the peaks of the pitched roofs of Units #5 and #6. The peaks
of the pitched roofs are setback from the edge of the building (closer to the courtyard). Building
heights on the northern and southern fa<;ades would vary between 20 and 28 feet. The project has
also been revised to increase the building articulation along the northern fas:ade as well as to increase
the building setback in the central portion of the building, just south of the two-story single-family
residence to the north. The shadow diagrams showing the proposed conditions reflect the proposed
detailed building articulation, including pitched roofs, second story setbacks, roof angles, and
building heights based on the revised site plans provided by the project applicant. Exhibits A and B
illustrate the shadow patterns for the proposed project during the summer and winter solstices, June
21 and December 21, respectively. These exhibits show the project's predicted length of shadows
from 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M.
As shown in Exhibit A, shadows cast by the proposed project on the summer solstice Gune 21)
would extend across the project site boundary onto adjacent residential properties. The new
shadows would be limited to no more than three hours of shading off-site and would be contained
within the project site boundaries after 11:00 A.M. during the summer. As such, existing and new
shadows cast throughout the day would not occur over a significant period of time and would be
below the threshold stated above. It should be noted that because of the larger setback provided by
the proposed project, the shadow that would be cast over the one-story single-family residence at the
corner of Arizona Avenue and Franklin Court would be limited to a maximum of one hour between
9:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. This would be less than the existing shadow, which does not fully recede
until 12:00 P.M. As a result, this particular residence would gain at least two hours of sunlight with
the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact during the
summer solstice.
As shown in Exhibit B, shadows cast by the proposed project on the winter solstice (December 21)
would extend across the project site boundary onto adjacent residential properties and onto Arizona
Avenue. Although the shadows would be longer during the morning hours with the proposed
project than those cast by the existing bungalows, the duration of shading is not measurably different
from existing conditions. In some areas (i.e., near the corner of Arizona Avenue and Franklin
PCR Services Corporation
Page 4
July 24, 2003
90
Memorandum
RE: 1311-1315 CENTINELA AVENUE TO\IVNHOMES
SHADOW ANALYSIS
ADDITIONAL
Court), shadows are less with the proposed project. The shadow diagram for the proposed
conditions indicates shading of small portions of the adjacent properties for more than four hours.
The new shadows resulting from the proposed project would be limited to a maximum of one hour
between 1:00 P.M. and 2:00 P.M. in areas that are approximately six feet in width between the
project site boundaries and the adjacent two-story residences. New shadows in these areas would not
likely fall across the roof of the two-story residences and would not block potential solar rooftop
access. These temporarily shaded areas are also not considered usable outdoor spaces and could not
physically be used for passive or active recreation. As such, these portions of the adjacent properties
are not considered shadow-sensitive.
As shown in Exhibit B, the yard between the one-story single-family and the two-story single-family,
which is considered usable outdoor space for recreational purposes, would primarily be free of
shadows by 1 :00 P.M., while existing shadows do not fully recede off that particular area until past
2:00 P.M. during the winter solstice. As a result, the one-story single-family residence and the
adjacent yard would gain one to two hours of sunlight during the winter solstice with the proposed
project. As indicated above, the yard between the two-story single-family structure and the two-
story multi-family structure is covered with a trellis-type structure and, therefore, does not receive
sunlight. Accordingly, this area is not considered shadow-sensitive. Based on the type of toofing
and the existing shadows from landscaping, it is unlikely that this area would be used for solar access.
In consideration of these different conditions resulting from the proposed project, new shadows cast
by the project during the winter solstice are considered to be less than significant.
As can be seen from the exhibits, the project would cast shadows to the east in the afternoon from
1:00 P.M. and 3:00 P.M., particularly during the winter solstice. The longest shadow is predicted to
be approximately 75 feet from the property line, which would be cast across CentinelaAvenue onto
the existing parkway and sidewalk on the east side of street. However, these shadows would be
limited within the public right-of-way and would not reach the shadow-sensitive residential
structures across Centinela Avenue. Therefore, no significant impacts to these uses would occur.
CONCLUSION
As determined above, the proposed structures would result in shadows cast on adjacent properties.
Shadow-sensitive areas were identified to include south-facing walls and rooftops, which have the
potential to accommodate solar equipment, and the yard between the one-story single-family and
two-story single family, which is considered usable outdoor space for recreational purposes. Based
on the above analysis for the revised project, these shadow-sensitive areas on adjacent properties
would not be shaded by project-related structures for more than three hours between the hours of
9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. during the winter solstice, or for more than four hours between the hours of
9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. during the summer solstice. Therefore, project-related shadows are
considered to be less than significant.
PCR Services Corporation
Page 5
July 24, 2003
91
Existing Conditions
ARIZONA AVENUE
Two-Story
Single-Family
Two-Story
Multi-Family
I-
t!::
::::J
o
C:I
2:
:::;
~
z
tZc
liL
Proposed Conditions
~~
Two-Story
Single-Family
~;.;
L,._
:::1
8
?
._J
~
Z
~
u.
""~.I
~
Two-Story
Multi-Family
w
::)
Z
w
?f
Ji
Feet
Exhibit A
Existing and Proposed Project
Summer Solstice Sly.do~
. l) I.J ~
I-
0::
::>
o
u
z
::::;
~
~
u..
,.,I'd"
=:1
.;J..
z:
'1;
w:
u..
.;-.:t;
,=1
~
F"
Z'
W
U
"'K.'
~
Exhibit B
Existing and Proposed Project
Winter Solstice Shadows
ULQ1
~{j
frr:r~l