SR-021208-6B~~~
~;tYO, City Council Report
Santa Monica®
City Council Meeting: February 121,,2008
Agenda Item: yl ~ 8
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Eileen Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development
Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission's approval of Development Review
Permit for the construction of a condominium complex located at 1433
Fourteenth Street.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council deny appeal 07APP-009 and uphold the Planning
Commission's approval of Development Review Permit 06-010 and Tentative Map 06-
009 to allow the construction of a 27,550 square foot, 19-unit condominium complex at
1433-37 Fourteenth Street subject to the recommended findings and conditions.
Executive Summary
The applicant, 1433-1437 14t" Street LLC, requests approval of a Development Review
Permit (DR06-010) and Tentative Tract Map (06-009) to allow construction of a 27,550
square foot, 19-unit condominium project with a 42-space subterranean parking garage.
The Planning Commission approval of the Development Review Permit and Tentative
Tract Map was appealed on the basis that the project is incompatible with the
immediate neighborhood and will cause traffic congestion. Additionally, the appellant
believes that public input was circumvented by actions of the developer and states this
as a basis for the appeal.
The project design has undergone multiple revisions since application in response to
staff concerns regarding mass and height relative to adjacent properties, apparent
massing from the street, lack of openness and pedestrian orientation. The applicant
has further modified the project design to address the Planning Commission conditions
of approval. This report addresses the points of the appeal, considers the revised
project plans and concludes that the proposed project is generally consistent with the
Municipal Code and General Plan and building's size, massing, and placement on the
site relate harmoniously to surrounding.sites and neighborhood. The project is subject
to taxes and fees totaling approximately $326,125.
Background
On June 13, 2006, the applicant applied for a Tentative Tract Map to allow an airspace
subdivision fora 19-unit condominium complex. Since the proposed project was in
1
excess of 22,500 square feet, a Development Review Permit was required and was
applied for on August 31, 2006. Following staff review and analysis, the building design
was revised to conform to Zoning Code requirements and to address design concerns
raised by staff, including the following:
• Pedestrian Orientation -Openness of courtyard improved; Obstructions were
removed from the courtyard entry; landscaping and walkways within the front
yard were redesigned to create visual interest at the courtyard entry; fountain
was added to the courtyard to provide a focal point that can be seen from outside
the property; height of the first floor floor line was lowered to increase pedestrian
orientation; doors and windows were added to the front fapade; fencing within the front
yard was modified to feature open railings.
• Height & Mass Relative to Adjacent Structures - To further reduce the perceived
mass of the building, the third floor balconies at the front entry were reconfigured
and made as transparent as possible. The side setbacks on the third floor were
increased so that the entire third floor is stepped back from the side to eliminate
a three story condition at the minimum side yard setback adjacent to the existing
one story commercial building on the south.
• Massing -The perceived mass of the building was softened by stepping back
more of the building volume on the upper levels than required, and by reducing
the mass of proposed columns.
A CEQA Class 32 Exemption determination was completed on June 6, 2007. The
Planning Commission reviewed the project on June 20, 2007 and provided the applicant
with direction to return at a later date to improve the project design and presentation
materials. The Commission directed the applicant to address a range of issues to
improve the project's overall contemporary architectural design and its compatibility with
the immediate neighborhood. In response the applicant made the following changes to
the project's architecture to address the Commission concerns:
• The central portion of the third floor was relocated from the front to the rear of the
building to open up the entry to the central courtyard and minimize the mass of
the building.
• Windows, doors and balcony railings were modified to enhance the
contemporary architectural style.
• The balcony/roof terraces of the third floor front units were reduced in size.
• The south fagade was modified so that portion of the upper floors toward the rear
of the building no longer cantilever over the driveway and are set back
approximately 28 feet from the south side property line.
2
On October 17, 2007 the Planning Commission approved the Development Review
Permit and Tentative Tract Map with conditions. The appellant, E. Antonio, filed an
Appeal of the Commission's approval on October 29, 2007.
Discussion
Project Description
The following table provides a brief summary of the project location. Additional
information regarding the project's compliance with applicable municipal regulations and
the General Plan is available in Attachment C.
Project and Site Information Table
Zoning District:
Land Use
Element Designation:
Parcel Area (SF):
Parcel Dimensions:
Existing On-Site
Improvements (Year
Built):
Rent Control Status:
Adjacent Zoning
Districts and Land Uses:
R3
Medium Density
Housing
22,500 square feet
100' x 150'
One-story, 14,490
square foot
convalescent building
(1954)
N/A
BCD District/ 1 story
commercial building;
R3 District/ 2 and 3
story multi-family
residences; single
family residence.
Issues Related to Protect Design
Staff expressed concerns regarding the original building design that were related to the
height and mass of the building, the apparent mass at the street front, and concerns
about the pedestrian orientation of the project. The applicant reduced the overall size of
the project and redesigned the building so that the third floor of the project was stepped
back on all sides of the project, and made a number of changes to improve the
3
Site Location Map
pedestrian orientation of the building. Areas of concern that have been addressed in
subsequent designs are highlighted on the graphic below.
Original Design
Remove Building Mass above
Courtyard Entry at Front of Building Reduce Buildin
Reduce Building _ g
Mass at Side Mass at Side
Balcony Areas Reduced ~ Improve T?~nsit[on to
Add Landscaping in Low Planters
to Enhance Courtyard Entry
The building under consideration reflects modifications made to the design in response
to Planning Commission direction and which conforms to the Planning Commission
The proposed project is a three-story, 35-foot high building with a central courtyard.
The building contains twelve three bedroom units and seven 2 bedroom units, including
fourteen townhouse style units, and five two bedroom flats on the third floor. The third
floor units are accessed via an elevated walkway overlooking the central courtyard. In
addition to exterior stairs at the rear of the building, a central elevator provides access
4
conditions of approval.
between the subterranean garage and the first and third floors. Each ground floor unit
has a patio to provide private open space; the third floor units have either a terrace or
balcony. A central courtyard provides additional common open space for the building.
Parking is provided in asingle-level, 42-space semi-subterranean parking garage.
Access to the parking garage is provided via a 20-foot wide, two-way driveway from 14rn
Court alley. Multiple stairways and an elevator provide pedestrian access from the
garage.
The amount of landscape area within the front and side yard areas complies with City
requirements. Additional landscaping is provided in the rear yard and within the
courtyard. The Architectural Review Board will review the building's design, materials,
colors and landscaping prior to submitting plans for building permits. The current
design reflects direction provided by the Planning Commission both in specific
conditions of approval and issues to be considered by the Architectural Review Board.
~i~ ~ -
~„ a i.4.
_~ ~ ~~ ~ 1 y,~~ ~.
J ~' ~ r dl
„ ~,,~~ „P _ n i~ Project Site Plan
5
Development Review Permit/Neiphborhood Compatibility
In addition to the Tentative Tract Map for the airspace subdivision to create 19
condominium units, approval of a Development Review Permit is required as new
construction has been proposed in excess of 22,500 square feet in floor area.
Surrounding land uses include a mixture of two and three story multi-family residential
units to the north and east, and one, two and three story multi-family buildings across
14th Street to the west of the project site in the R3 District, one story commercial
buildings to the south adjacent to the project site, and a two story multifamily residential
project across 14th Street in the Broadway Commercial District (BCD). Anew 3-story, 6-
unit condominium project was recently approved to replace the single story structure
across 14th street to the west.
This portion of the R3 District consists of approximately six 50-foot wide parcels located
between the C4 District along Santa Monica Boulevard and the BCD District along
Broadway. Fourteenth Street is a north-south street providing two travel lanes with a
continuous two-way left turn lane down the center and is designated as a collector
street in the City's Circulation Element. Most of the existing structures along the east
side of this portion of 14th Street are built with minimal front yard setbacks. Additionally,
the majority of the structures on both sides of the street are built with setbacks non-
conforming to current development standards.
Sfreetscape with Proposed Projecf - 14"' Streef Befween Broadway and Santa Monica Boulevard
The existing development within the immediate neighborhood varies greatly with regard
to age, style, condition and massing. The proposed project is designed in a
contemporary style that features smooth troweled stucco, steel bar railings and brushed
aluminum window frames. The project site is 150 feet wide, and while this is larger than
most of the sites in the immediate neighborhood, the proposed 35 foot high, three-story
s
building is designed with front and side setbacks and stepbacks that reduce the
perceived mass of the project. The proposed project will be setback from the side
property lines a minimum of 8 feet with portions of the building set back 28 feet. More
than 60% of the front facade is setback approximately 30 feet from the front property
line at the lower levels, and approximately 40 feet from the front property line at the third
level.
Consistency with General Plan
The project is generally consistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan, in that
the 19-unit project implements City urban design policies, and provides 19 additional
residential units which is consistent with Land Use Element Objective 1.1, to provide
adequate housing for City residents of all incomes, and Land Use Element Policy 1.10
to expand the opportunity for residential land use while protecting the scale and
character of existing neighborhoods. Redevelopment of the site with 19 new units is
also consistent with General Plan Housing .Element Goal 1.0, to promote the
construction of new housing within the City's regulative framework.
Commission Action/ Applicant Response
At the October 17, 2007 Planning Commission meeting no public testimony was
received. The Planning Commission voted 4-3 to approve the Development Review
Permit and the Tentative Tract Map to allow the 27,550 square foot 19-unit
condominium project, with conditions. In its deliberation, the Commission identified a
number of design concerns that would need to be addressed prior to approval of the
building design and landscaping by the Architectural Review Board. The following
conditions of approval are to ensure that the building's size, massing, and placement on
the site will relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhood:
• The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall also pay particular attention
to the project's pedestrian orientation and amenities; scale and articulation of
design elements; exterior colors, textures and material; window treatment;
glazing; and landscaping. The Architectural Review Board shall consider the
jumbled nature of the proposed design. Prior to submittal to the Architectural
Review Board, the applicant shall prepare an additional rendering that clearly
shows the courtyard entry in relation to the public right-of-way and demonstrates
how the courtyard design enhances the project's pedestrian orientation.
• The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall also pay particular attention
to the project's design in context with the contemporary architectural style,
especially the building symmetry, including the building's floorplate and massing
configuration, and the entry gate, skywalk, and curved skylights which appear
inconsistent with the established vocabulary of the building design.
• Prior to submittal to the Architectural Review Board, the applicant shall revise the
landscape plan and courtyard site design to create a usable courtyard space that
accommodates a seating area that incorporates seats facing each other. The
height of the planters as measured from the adjacent courtyard paving should be
limited to "seat wall" height in this courtyard area.
• Prior to submittal to the Architectural Review Board, the applicant shall minimize
the height of the planters at the courtyard entry as measured from the adjacent
courtyard paving in order to increase the perceived width of the entry.
• The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall also pay particular attention
to the garage stairways within the side yard. The north stairway should be
removed, and the south stairway removed if possible and the side yard areas no
longer needed for access should be landscaped.
The building design before the Council reflects these conditions of approval. The
building's staggered rectangular forms create a unique architectural design. Recessed
balconies, canopies and trellis provide architectural detail to the facades, and recessed.
windows create shadows to provide additional architectural interest and are consistent
with the established vocabulary of the building's architecture. The improved
landscaping and courtyard design further enhance the project architecture and increase
the project's pedestrian orientation. Staff believes that the revised project is of
appropriate size and mass and will relate harmoniously to the surrounding sites and
neighborhood. Amore detailed discussion of the project can be found in the October
17, 2007 Planning Commission staff report.
Appeal Summary
As detailed in the appellant's statement (Attachment A) the appellant believes that the
proposed building footprint is too big for the immediate neighborhood, and that the
building is too high. Additionally, the appellant believes the project will cause traffic
a
congestion and bottle-neck alley access. The appellant also believes that public input
was circumvented by actions of the developer and states this as a basis of the appeal.
A~oeal Analysis
Building Mass - As discussed earlier in this report, the proposed project features
setbacks and stepbacks in excess of the minimum requirements and is under the
maximum allowable height. The Planning Commission agreed with staff that the
overall building massing is appropriate for the site. The appellant disagrees; she
believes that the project footprint is too big and the building is too high.
Traffic - As detailed in the Environmental Analysis section of this report, a determination
was made following consideration of trip generation rates of the existing and proposed
uses, that approval of the project would not result in any significant traffic impacts.
(Attachment F) Additionally, the proposed subterranean parking garage will provide
parking for 42 cars. The existing use, a convalescent facility, has a surface parking lot
behind the building with spaces accessed directly from the alley. The proposed
subterranean garage will have one point of ingress and egress and is not expected to
contribute to traffic congestion in the alley.
Public Process -The appellant believes that the project developer intimidated
neighbors so that public comment on the project was stifled. At the first Planning
Commission public hearing several members of the public testified and several pieces
of correspondence were received; no public testimony was received at the second
public hearing. Nonetheless, appellant's allegation of intimidation was reported to the
City Attorney and to the Police Department. An investigation was conducted. There
was insufficient evidence to warrant any further law enforcement activity.
Existing Use - The existing convalescent facility on the site will be demolished as part
of the project. The owners of the facility have decided to go out of business and have
filed the required paperwork with the State regarding the closure of the facility and the
9
relocation of convalescing residents. All of the residents have been relocated; the
facility has been closed since November, 2007.
Environmental Analysis
The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Class 32, Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Projects characterized as in-fill
development consistent with the following conditions are exempt from environmental
review:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all
applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and
regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no
more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened
species.
(d) Approval of the project would .not result in any significant effects relating to
traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services
As indicated in the Class 32 Exemption Environmental Assessment, 1433 14t" Street,
Santa Monica dated June 6, 2007 (Attachment E), the project has been analyzed and
found to be in conformance with the applicable conditions to qualify for an exemption
pursuant to CEQA Section 15332, Class 32.
Moreover, the project, including the property and any existing improvements have been
reviewed, and for the purposes of CEQA, determined not to be a significant historic
resource. Notwithstanding this CEQA determination, because the existing structure(s)
proposed for demolition is/are over 40 years old, a permit to demolish the existing
improvements will not be issued until the Landmarks Commission reviews the
demolition permit application and all requirements of SMMC Section 9.04.10.16.010 (d)
are met. The City's Landmarks Commission retains jurisdiction to review the demolition
10
permit application and to nominate the improvement as a City Landmark or Structure of
Merit pursuant to the designation criteria and procedures contained in Chapter 9.36 of
the Santa Monica Municipal Code. At the time this report was prepared, the applicant
has not submitted an application for a demolition permit for this property.
Public Outreach
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.14.030 and Part 9.04.20.22, notice of the
public hearing for both Planning Commission hearings and for this City Council hearing
was posted at the site and was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial
tenants of property located within a 500 foot radius of the project and published in the
Santa Monica Daily Press at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
The project is subject to a Parks and Recreation Facilities Tax of $200 per unit and a
Condominium Facilities Tax of $1,000 per saleable unit for a total tax of $22,800
In addition, the project is required to comply with the City's Affordable Housing
Production Program as specified in Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.56. This
requirement may be satisfied by providing affordable housing on or off-site, or by
payment of an in-lieu fee. The applicant has opted to pay the fee; the fee is estimated
to be $303,325.
The project is exempt from the Housing and Parks Project Mitigation fee established by
Ordinance No. 1367 (CCS), based on the fact that the project will not result in the new
construction of 15,000 net rentable square feet or the addition to an existing project of
10,000 net rentable square feet or more of office area.
11
Prepared by:
Laura Beck, Associate Planner
Approved:
Forwarded to Council:
Development
Attachments:
A. Appeal Form
B. Draft City Council Statement of Official Action
C. General Plan and Municipal Code Compliance Worksheet
D. Public Notification and Comment Material
E. Class 32 Exemption Environmental Assessment (6/6/07)
F. Project Plans, Renderings, Photographs and Photomontage & Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 66611
12
Additional
attachments
available in City
Clerk's Office.