sr-021009-6aCity Council Meeting: February 10, 2009
Agenda Item: 66=A
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Eileen Fogarty, Plannirg & Community Development
Subject: Appeal of the Environmental Determination for the Construction of a New
Senior Group Housing Project with 17 Individual Living Quarters at 749
Seventeenth Street.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council deny appeal O8APP-015 and uphold the Planning
Commission's finding that the design review approval of a senior group housing project
with 17 individual living quarters at 749 Seventeenth Street is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Executive Summary
This report supports the Planning Commission's determination that the design review
approval granted for a senior group housing project with 17 individual living quarters at
749 Seventeenth Street is exempf from the requirements of CEQA. The report also
addresses the points of the appeal filed by the Montana Neighborhood Coalition and
Ron Goldman that assert that the Planning Commission's adoption of a CEQA
Exemption is in error and an abuse of discretion.
Discussion
Project History
The applicant is proposing atwo-story senior group housing project, with 17 individual
living quarters, that is Spanish/Mediterranean in style, color and material palette. The
Architectural Review Board reviewed and conditionally approved the project design on
July 21, 2008. At such time, the project was determined to be exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Guidelines
Section 15061(b)(3), in that it could be seen with certainty that the proposed project
would not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. A timely
appeal of this approval was filed by the Montana Neighborhood. Coalition and Ron
Goldman, based on neighborhood environmental issues, neighborhood compatibility
and certain transportation-related design issues.
1
On September 17, 2008, the Planning Commission first considered the project design
de novo. At the direction of the Planning Commission, staff revisited the level of
environmental review suitable for the project, and found the project was exempt under
the CEQA Guidelines. On November 5, 2008, after hearing testimony from members of
the public, the applicant and appellants, and deliberating on the design of the project
and its .impacts, the Commission found the project to be exempt per Section
15061(b)(3) and upheld the Architectural Review Board's decision and approved the
project design (See Attachment B). On November 19, 2008, an appeal was filed by the
Montana Neighborhood Coalition and .Ron Goldman disputing the Planning
Commission's adoption of a CEQA Exemption relative to its approval of the building
design, colors, matetials and landscaping plans for the subject senior group housing
project.
Appeal Summary
The appellants contend that the "Planning Commission's adoption of (the) CEQA
Exemption is in error and (an) abuse of discretion. This case involves a 'discretionary
action' which requires the preparation of an initial study and checklist." Appellants point
to the. ARB review process and contend that this process necessitates heightened
review of the project. Appellants claim, notwithstanding the ARB's limited scope of
review, this project may have a significant impact on the. environment based on its
aesthetic impact The appellants further contend that the adoption of a "Categorical
Exemption" is an "egregious violation of CEQA," and provides the basis for the appeal
as follows: the environmental review conducted fora previous project by the same
applicant on the same site; the testimony from the public of potentially significant
aesthetic and ingress/egress design impacts; and the assertion that an otherwise
ministerial project is subject to CEQA review if discretion is exercised, relying on the
Friends of Westwood case.
2
Project Rendering
General Guidelines for Environment Assessment
CEQA. and its implementing regulations (the CEQA Guidelines) establish athree-tier
process for assessing the environmental impact of proposed activities. Determination of
the appropriate level of environmental. review is made by the lead agency. The first tier
involves an assessment of whether an activity is even a project subject to CEQA. The
second tier involves an assessment of whether a CEQA project is nevertheless exempt
from CEQA based on a statutory exemption, a categorical exemption (a CEQA
Guideline exemption), or the common sense exemption. The common sense
exemption provides agencies with a mechahism to address discretionary activities
which are arguably subject to CEQA but which common sense dictates that they need
not be subject to CEQA. It is the lead agency's burden to support the determination that
an exemption applies. Projects exempt from CEQA do not require preparation of an
initial study and are not subject to further environmental review through the preparation
of a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. Under these circumstances,
the agency may file a notice of exemption after project approval, stating the appropriate
statutory or guidelines exemption and addressing the reasons for the exemption
determination. The third tier. applies if the agency determines that the project has
potential to cause a significant effect on the environment necessitating preparation of an
initial study leading to a Negative Declaration or an EIR.
Appeal Purview
3
Public Resources Code Section 21151 allows an individual to appeal a project's CEQA
determination when the final action is made by anon-elected, decision-making body.
Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.64 mirrors this provision. In this case, given
that the Planning Commission is anon-elected, decision-making body, its CEQA
determination was properly appealed to the City Council. However, the scope of review
of this appeal is limited to review of the Commission's CEQA determination. The
Commission's action in upholding the underlying ARB permit is not before the City
Council
CEQA Exemption
As detailed below, two CEQA exemptions apply to this project. First, CEQA. Guideline
Section 15268(a) provides that ministerial projects are exempt from CEQA. A
ministerial project is a project which involves a governmental decision with little or no
personal judgment exercised by the agency as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out
the project. Whether a project is ministerial is a decision made by the local agency
based upon an analysis of its own laws. Second, CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3)
provides that "where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment,- the activity is not
subject to CEQA."
Ministerial Project Review
The proposed senior group housing project is a permitted use in the R2 District and will
be developed. consistent with all R2 development standards, including but not limited to
maximum height, maximum parcel coverage, minimum setbacks, and open space. As
provided by the City's Zoning Ordinance, the R2 development standards. have been
designed to ensure that the completed project will be in harmony with existing or future
development in the surrounding neighborhood and consistent with the goals, objectives
and policies of the General Plan. Since this project is a permitted use, review of these
basic development standards is ministerial and is undertaken as part of the City's plan
check process during the review of the project's building permit application. Permitted
projects are not subjected to discretionary review or approval by the Zoning
4
Administrator, Planning Commission, or City Council. Under local law, such
discretionary review is required for projects requiring a variance, use permit, conditional
use permit, .design compatibility permit, development review permit, subdivision map, or
development agreement. These discretionary permits are reserved for projects which,
due to the use proposed or the intensity/size of the proposed development they have
effects. on the surrounding environment that cannot be determined in advance of the
review of the specific proposal and its location. Such is not the case here. Given local
law, the ministerial plan check review of this project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to
Section 15268(a) of the State Guidelines.
Scope ofARB Review Limited
Although the ARB's decision can be characterized as discretionary, the ARB's review
authority is circumscribed. The ARB, or Planning Commission acting as ARB on
appeal, cannot require modifications to a project which negate the .fundamental
development standards established by the Zoning Ordinance (e.g., overall height,
number of stories, density). Its authority is limited to review of the aesthetic qualities of
a structure, such as massing, color palette, finishing materials, fenestration patterns,
and landscaping choices. This limited review is reflected in the findings that the ARB
must make to approve a permit as set forth in SMMC Section 9.32.140 and the long-
standing application of this statutory scheme by the ARB, and by the Planning
Commission on appeal. These required findings are:
a. The plan for the proposed building or structure is
expressive of good taste, good design, and in general contributes
to the image of Santa Monica as a place of beauty, creativity and
individuality.
b. The proposed building or structure is not of inferior quality
such as to cause the nature of the local neighborhood or
environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value.
c. The proposed design of the building or structure is
compatible with developments on land in the general area.
d. The proposed development is in conformity with the
effective guidelines and standards adopted pursuant to this
chapter
5
In the proceedings, appellants argued that an EIR was required due to traffic impacts
and safety concerns over the driveway width. However, as discussed in Friends of
Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, a case relied on by appellants and addressed in
more detail below, the touchstone in determining whether an EIR is required is whether
the approval process allows the government to shape the project in any way that would
respond to any of the concerns which might be identified in an EIR. The ARB does not
have the authority through its aesthetic review to address issues of traffic or driveway
width safety. Appellants cannot insist on heightened environmental review to assess
potential impacts of the project when the ARB has no authority to compel revisions
based on this environmental review. In short, courts do not require public agencies to
engage in useless acts.
Aesthetic Concerns
Appellants claim, notwithstanding the ARB's limited scope of review, this project may
have a significant impact on the environment based on its aesthetic impact, an area
certainly within the ARB's jurisdiction. Thus, appellants contend that, even accepting
ARB's limited jurisdiction, the City was required at a minimum to prepare an initial
checklist and study to determine if there were any potential significant aesthetic
impacts. However, this was not required here for several reasons.
First, courts recognize that the design review process itself serves to ensure that a
project will not degrade the visual character or aesthetics of the general area. Here, as
reflected by the record of the previous proceedings, this project has undergone
extensive design review by staff, the ARB, and the Planning Commission. The
applicant has made substantial revisions to the proposed design based on this review.
To argue, as appellants do, that the ARB review process itself triggers the need to
undertake greater environmental review based on project aesthetics turns this process
on its head.
Second, as detailed below, given the location of the project, the location and nature of
the existing structures on the site, the surrounding developments, and the proposed
6
design of the project, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this
project may have a significant aesthetic effect on the environment. Although the City
was not required to prepare an initial study given the project's exempt status, an
examination of the relevant provisions of the model initial study in the CEQA guidelines
provides additional evidence to bolster the City's reliance on the common sense
exemption.
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines sets forth the Environmental Checklist Form.
Under the form's aesthetics category, the following questions are asked:
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
Would .the project substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings; and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Would the project create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
The response to all of these questions is no.
The proposed project involves redevelopment in an urbanized area of the City. The
neighborhood is varied in scale, character and use with Montana Avenue acting as the
transition between a low density, single family residential development pattern to the
north and higher density, multi-family residential neighborhood to the south. The street
itself transitions from neighborhood serving commercial to multi-family residential at
17th Street.
The project site is at the intersection of a designated collector street (Montana Avenue)
and feeder street (17th Street). A June 2007 traffic study indicated that over 17,000
vehicles traverse Montana Avenue at this location on a daily basis; over 3,000 vehicles
travel on 17tH Street, north of Montana Avenue; and, just under 7,000 travel on 17tH
south of Montana. It is also located at a point where varying development types and
planned residential densities converge.
The site itself and surrounding areas are generally flat. The project is located more than
one mile from the Pacific Ocean and is not located along a designated scenic corridor
(Scenic Corridors Element of the General Plan, 1975). It will not impact any scenic
vistas. This project is also not within a state scenic highway. Indeed, the only roadway
within the City that is eligible for a scenic designation, but not officially designated, is
Pacific Coast Highway (State 1).
This project would also not create a new source of substantial light or glare. Appellants
do not suggest otherwise. The project site is located within a highly developed area of
the City with numerous sources of nighttime lighting already in place, including
streetlights and security lighting within parking areas and oh buildings. Light sources on
the project site would consist of outside security lighting and light from within the senior
group housing project. Incremental amounts of lighting from residential windows or
security lights would not substantially increase or alter existing lighting conditions in the
area.
Neighborhood Context
s
Project Site -Existing Conditions
Given the location of the project, the location of the existing structures on the site, the
surrounding developments, .and the proposed design of the project, there is no
possibility that this project would substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings. The project site consists of two lots developed
with four multi-family buildings with a combined total of ten units (8 one-bedroom, 2 two-
bedroom) built in 1939 and 1943. The one and two story buildings are modest in size
and undistinguished in design with the two-story components stacked along the eastern
property line at anon-conforming setback. The site is located in a neighborhood that is
quite varied in character. The project site is surrounded by commercial development to
the west and south along Montana Avenue, and residential development to the north
and east. The Montana public library branch is located to the south across Montana
Avenue. More specifically, the housing stock, north of Montana Avenue, consists of
single family dwellings of various architectural styles, although the Spanish
Mediterranean style is the most prevalent. Most of these houses were originally modest
in .size and generally one-story in height, but many have been expanded in size and
scale over time through single-story and/or upper story room additions. Recent
demolition and replacement infill development has occurred on certain lots at a scale
and size (up to approximately 8,000 square feet in size) that is much greater than the
original stock.
9
South of Montana Avenue and along Montana east of the project site, the development
type shifts to multiple family -and is more eclectic in architectural style. Most of the
.projects are currently. developed at densities that .exceed current development
standards. The height of these buildings is typically two stories, although many include
additional mezzanine levels which change the perception of the number of stories and
apparent building mass. In general, some of the newer buildings include features, such
as ample glazing, upper level balconies and varied rooflines that make for an interesting
and pedestrian-friendly streetscape. In contrast, some of the older buildings are not
particularly pedestrian oriented in design and have an imposing physical presence
along the street, due to their boxy design, lack of articulation and more minimal setback
from the sidewalk. Although in some cases mature landscaping is present on-site which
softens the visual impacts.
10
600- 700 Block of 17`h Street -North of Montana
Montana Avenue -
The existing commercial development along Montana Avenue, west of 17th Street, is
neighborhood-serving and consists of one and two story buildings with minimal setback
from the sidewalk. These buildings are typically pedestrian oriented in design and
include ample storefront glazing, and outdoor seating, when appropriate. These
commercial developments include afull-service banking center, a pharmacy, dental
offices, a beauty salon, a grocery store, restaurants, and retail clothing stores.
11
The proposed building is Spanish/Mediterranean in style and features materials,
finishes and detailing that are distinctive to the chosen architectural concept and
compatible within the context of the neighborhood. The building has been arranged on-
site to create a central courtyard which is a fitting design response that is reflective of
the current onsite open space configuratiori. The side and front elevations demonstrate
appropriate articulation as the exterior walls vary in depth along the length of each
facade. The buildings are also- vertically articulated to break up the mass of the
structure into a series of smaller components. The 17th Street elevation includes a
covered outdoor arcade while the Montana Avenue elevation features a large glazed
entry, both of which enhance their respective streetscapes.
Prior to submitting this project, the applicant proposed the construction of three
condominium units, a senior group housing facility with seven individual living quarters
12
Montana Avenue -West of 17`h Street
Project Rendering -Montana Avenue elevation
and a 48-person adult care facility. A draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was
prepared for this proposed project because it was subject to discretionary review by the
City's Planning Commission since the adult day care facility required a conditional use
permit and the condominium units required a tentative parcel map. Although this earlier
proposal would have had different land uses, it was designed in a manner nearly
identical to the design currently proposed in terms of height, setback, mass, scale, and
siting. It was also Spanish Mediterranean in architectural concept and had a mass,
scale and two-story height similar to the current design. The buildings were configured
to create a central courtyard amenity. The project met all prescribed code
requirements. The Initial Study for the draft EIR determined that there was no potential
for a significant aesthetic environmental effect.
Neighborhood Compatibility
In the proceedings, appellants contended that the scale and height of the building are
not compatible with the structures in the R-2 zone north of Montana and abutting the R-
1zone north and east of the project. They took issue with numerous design features of
the project including the seven second floor balconies, the lack of offsets or recesses in
the mass of the building, the lack of a landscape buffer between the loading
space/driveway and the adjacent properties, the character of the North- and East
elevations, and the lack of enclosure around the trash area.. However, none of these
aesthetic concerns are sufficient to undermine the common sense exemption. In this
regard, this challenge is remarkably similar to a challenge that was rejected in Bowman
v. City of Berkeley.
In that case, a neighborhood group challenged a senior housing project which involved
the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a four story mixed use
facility with 40 dwelling units. The site was located adjacent to a heavily used
thoroughfare with atwo-story apartment building .north of the site and single-family
homes to the east and west of the site. The neighborhood organization and other
citizens claimed that the project was out of character with its surroundings -constituting
13
a monstrosity that would not fit into the fabric of the neighborhood, particularly because
the project was too tall.
The Court noted that the significance of an environmental impact is measured based on
the context in which the impact occurs. The significance of an activity may well vary if it
takes place in a rural area rather than an urban area: Moreover, aesthetic
considerations can constitute environmental impacts where scenic views or
environmentally sensitive areas are involved. However, "[t]he aesthetic difference
between afour-story and athree-story building on a commercial lot on a major
thoroughfare in a developed urbah area is not a significant environmental impact, even
under the fair argument standard." In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that the
project was subject to design review and that the type of aesthetic issues raised in that
case is normally addressed in that context not through CEQA. "Where a project must
undergo design review under local law, that process itself can be found to mitigate
purely aesthetic impacts to insignificance.... " The Court concluded that "ah EIR is not
required where the sole environmental impact is the aesthetic merits of a building in a
highly developed area. A contrary. holding that mandated redundant analysis would
only produce needless delay and expense."
Other Appellant Issues
Aside from appellants focus on aesthetics, appellants also -argue that greater
environmental review was required because they contend that the garage access for
the proposed project is unsafe due to the width of this driveway. However, the design
standards for driveways and ramp widths are established by Section 9.04.10.08.100 of
the Zoning Ordinance and vests the Zoning Administrator and City Parking and Traffic
Engineer with authority to approve width reductions. These adjustments are made in
the context of ministerial project plan check review. Given that implementation of these
zoning standards are expressly delegated to specific City staff by the City's zoning
code, the ARB, and the Planning Commission acting as the ARB, does not have
jurisdiction to require project modifications to address potential driveway width safety
issues. Notwithstanding this jurisdictional limitation, staff notes that in response to the
14
concerns expressed at the September 17th Planning Commission hearing. regarding the
subterranean garage access, the applicant has .redesigned the garage access to
provide a modified two lane design. More specifically, the access drive to the
subterranean parking garage has been widened to eighteen feet for a length of
seventeen feet from the back of sidewalk to the interior of the site in order to allow the
safe passage of two motor vehicles on-site, and to eliminate the potential for any back-
up maneuvering onto Montana Avenue. The driveway then incrementally reduces in
width to twelve feet at the actual garage entry point. A portion of the drive will be striped
to clearly delineate travel lanes. The curb cut will also be widened to eighteen feet.
Additionally; the applicant has retained a visual signaling system to warn of approaching
traffic and added a sign prohibiting backing-up at the garage entry.
Appellants point to the authority of the Zoning Administrator and the City Parking
and Traffic Engineer to approve width reductions and. now argue that this authority
converts the ministerial nature of the City's building permit review to a discretionary
action subject to CEQA. Appellants cite Friends of Westwood. Inc. v. City of Los
Angeles. However, that case is vastly dissimilar from the challenged action here.
In Friends of Westwood, a developer sought to construct a 26 story office tower
in Westwood, with 363,585 square feet of floor space and parking for 881 cars. As the
court noted,. #hat case involved a project that was unusual in size, dimension, and
location. In Los Angeles, the plan check regime for major projects such as the
proposed office tower is vastly different than the review of other building permit
applications. Consequently, that city's building ordinance granted the city authority to
require substantial changes in the building design and exercise substantial discretion
throughout the review process. Only 100-150 projects each year in Los Angeles were
considered major projects subject to this heightened scrutiny and discretion out of the
40;000 building permits issued each year. As such, the court emphasized that the vast
majority of building permits issued by the City would continue to be considered
ministerial, rather than discretionary: Moreover, "the fact public employees exercise
their discretion to modify a single city council established standard or to impose a single
15
condition or modification does not automatically mean the approval process is a
'discretionary project"' under CEQA.
The proposed project challenged here is vastly dissimilar from the project in Friends of
Westwood and so too is the plan check review process. The limited authority of the
Zoning Administrator and City Parking and Traffic Engineer to reduce driveway width
does not convert the City's building permit process from a ministerial process to a
discretionary process for CEQA purposes.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
This recommendation has no budget or fiscal impact.
Prepared by:
Scott Albright, AICP; Senior Planner
Approved:
i
Forwarded to Council:
ueveiopment
Attachments
A. Appellants' Appeal Statement
B. Planning Commission Statement of Official Action, November 5, 2008
C. Planning Commission Staff Reports (without attachments), September 17, 2008,
November 5, 2008
16
ATTACHMENT A
Appellant's Appeal Statement
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is
available for review at the City Clerk's office and the libraries.
17
ity of
Santa Monica°
City of
Santa Monica
Planning and Community Development Department
City Planning: Division
(310) 458-8341
APPEAL FORM
(Please Type or Print all Information)
Application Number
DrP{~OP~'l~tr-~
APPELLANT NAME:
Filed:
By:
Montana Neighborhood Coalition & Ron Goldman
APPELLANT ADDRESS: 1717 Montana Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 90403
CONTACT PERSON: Ron Goldman Phone: (310) 456-1831
(all correspondence will be mailed to this address)
Address: 24955 Pacific Coast Hwy. A202
Malihn, Ca. 90765
PROJECT CASE NUMBER(S) : ARa 08-118
PROJECT ADDRESS: 749 17th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90403
APPLICANT: Charles Rosenbleet
ORIGINAL HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 & November. 5, 2008
ACTION BEING APPEALED`. CEQA exemption
Please state the specific reason(s) for the appeal (use separate sheet if necessary):
Is the appeal related to the discretionary action and findings issued for the proposed
project? X Yes _ No If yes, explain:
see attachment to appeal
Is the appeal related to the conditions of approval? _ Yes X No If yes, which
conditions and why:
Is the appeal related to design issues? % Yes _ No If yes, explain:
see attachment to appeal
Is the appeal related to compatibility issues such as building height, massing, pedestrian
orientation, etc.? X Yes _ No Jf yes, explain:
see attachment to a eal
Is the appeal related tonon-compliance with the Santa Monica Municipal Code? X Yes
No If yes, which Code section(s) does the project not comply with and why:
see attachment to appeal
Is the appeal f•elated to environmental impacts associated. with the project? % Yes _
No If yes, explain: Planning Commission's adoption of CEQA Exemption is
in error and abuse of discretion. This case involves a "discretionary
action" which re wires the re aration of an initial stud and check ist.
See attachment to appea L
Is the appeal related to other issues? X Yes _ No If yes, explain:
see attachment to appeal
APPELLANT SIGNATURE: ~//~~~~~~ ~~I~'
NOTE: A hearing date on the appeal will not be scheduled until sufficient
information regarding the basis for the appeal has been received to enable City
Planning Division staff to prepare the required analysis for the staff report.
nov t7 ua U.~:4'lp t,dtaman Firm icosst nrcnr eruu~r~esionu -p.i ~-
ATTACHMENT TO APPEAL
CEQA EXEMPTION -ARB 08-118
749 17t"Street
The Architectural Review Board ("ARB") and Planning Commission erred
in finding that the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under
the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Guidelines Section
15061(b)(3) based.on staff's opinion that the proposed project does not have the
potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
The adoption of a "Categorical Exemption' is an egregious violation of
CEQA for the following reasons:
1. As conceded by staff, there was a draft EIR completed for a
prior project at this same site by the same applicant. The fact that there is a
"new" project that does not require a Conditional Use Permit as the prior project
does not eliminate environmental review under CEQA. At a minimum, the City
must prepare an initial checklist and study to determine if there are any potential
significant environmental impacts.
2: Staff's opinion that the revised project will not have the
potential for causing a significant effect on the environment is not determinative
and does not comply with CEQA. As a matter of law, CEQA applies to any
"discretionary action" unless a project qualifies for an exemption. Staff's reliance
on CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b) (3} is misplaced. Not only is it error to state
there could be no potential environmental impact as a matter of "certainty", but
.there is evidence of potential significant impacts as to aesthetics and
ingressJegress.
A. Aesthetics:. Assuming for arguments sake that the
jurisdiction of the ARB and Planning Commission were limited only to "design
and aesthetics°, this issue alone is subject to CEQA review. It is on the initial
checklist and study required to be .completed in conjunctions with all
"discretionary' actions including design review. The City cannot summarily
circumvent CEQA w=ithout even an initial study especially where there has been
testimony from the public as to potential significant aesthetic impacts including
from appellant, a licensed architect.
B. Ingress and Egress: Appellant further contends that
driveway location, width and access are part of the site design of the project and
therefore subject to CEQA review. Again it is error for flee City to determine that
there are no potential significant impacts from this site design especially when
r xrtin`rcoss x....nrcnx rrusffcbuioau
there was testimony, including from a licensed .traffic enb eer, that the
driveway design, location and access was inadequate and would impact traffic
and public safety.
3. Even if the issue of ingress-egress and related traffic issues
could not be properly considered by the Planning Commission; an other~,vise
"ministerial" or so-called "by-right" project is still subject to CEQA if there is
discretion to be exercised by City officials that could potentially result iri
significant traffic and safety impacts. Friends o{Westwood v. City o{Los Angeles
(198' 191 Cal App. 3d 259. The Friends of Westwood case involved a "by-right"
project in which City staff and the City Attorney determined that the project was
exempt from CEQA (just as Santa Monica City staff and City Attorney stated in
the within matter). The Court of Appeal held that the project, though
"ministerial" was subject to CEQA because it required discretion by City officials
as to a variety of issues including ingress and egress. An EIR had to be prepared
even. though there was no formal "discretionary action' pending -only a
building permit. The City Attorney has distinguished Friends of Westwood as a
case im>olving a high-rise office building with potential impacts far greater than
the subject project. But the principle applied there still applies here -that an
otherwise "ministerial" project requiring only a building permit can still be
subject to environmental review under CEQA if there is "discretion" to be
exercised in connection with such project.
ATTACHMENT B
Planning Commission Statement of Official Action, November 5, 2008
18
~r
City of
City of Santa Monica
City Planning Division
PLANNING COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT INFORMATION
CASE NUMBER: APPEAL 08-013 of Architectural Review Board 08-118
LOCATION: 749 Seventeenth Street
APPLICANT(APPELLANT:Mnntana Neighborhood Coalition and Ron Goldman
PROPERTY OWNER: Charles Rosenbleet
CASE PLANNER: .Scott Albright, Senior Planner
REQUEST: Approval of the building design, colors, materials and
landscape plans for the construction of a new senior
group housing facility with 17 individuaF living quarters.
CEQA STATUS: The project is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) in that it can be seen with
certainty that the proposed project does not have the
potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment. The project is a permitted use in the district
.and will be developed consistent with all R2 development
standards, The proposed 17-room senior group project
will be 2 stories and 26.5 feet .tall. Approval of these
basic development standards are ministerial as part of
the City's plan check process and are not subject to ARB
review. Instead, ARB's review is limited to issues related
to the architecture, landscaping, and aesthetic nature of a
project. More specifically, ARB's review of the proposed
project involves an assessment of design-related issues
associated with the proposed structure in terms of
general architectural design, proposed materials., colors,
mechanical screening and/or landscape plans. Given
this limited scope of review, the ARB does not have the
authority through this review to address issues of traffic
>
j,
-.:.°.
.air quality, driveway width safety, and increased demand
upon municipal services such as Ovate"r, sewage, and
other utilities and emergency services. The Planning
Commission review authority of an ARB .appeal is
similarly limited. Consequently, the ARB review process
does not- allow the ARB to respond to any of these
concerns even if they were identified in an environmental
impact report as creating potentially significant
environmental impacts.
Given the location. of the project, the location of the
existing structures on -the site, the surrounding
developments, and the proposed design of the project, it
can be seen with certainty that the project will not have
the potential for .causing a significant impact related to
aesthetics, cultural resources, or shadows. Indeed, the
design review process itself serves to ensure that the
project will not degrade the visual character or aesthetics
of the general area. Additionally, while demolition of the
existing structures are not within the ARB's purview, the
Landmarks Commission considered the demolition permit
applications on February 18, 2007 and determined that
the existing structures do not warrant .nomination as a
designated City Landmark or Structure of Merit. Staff
also subsequently prepared a historic resources report
for the existing structures which reached the same
conclusion. Finally, the shadows cast onto adjacent
properties by the. existing on-site buildings are greater
than the shadows that would be cast by the proposed
project and are limited in duration. The shadow analysis
and historic resource analysis discussed above were
conducted in the context of a draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) prepared for the previously proposed
discretionary project which would have .had different land
uses but would have been designed in a manner nearly
identical to the design currently proposed in terms of
height, setback, mass, scale and siting. This draft EIR is
on file with the City's Planning Department.
2
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
November 5, 2008 Determination Date
Approved based on the following firdings and subject to the
conditions below.
X Disapprove appeal and uphold previous ARB approval.
Other:
EFFECTIVE DATES OF ACTIONS: November 5, 2008
Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and
substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the
Project. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on
the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact. from any
such summary is not an indication that a particular finding.. is not based in part on that
fact.
FINDINGS:
A. -The plan for the proposed building or structure is expressive of good taste, good
design, and in general contributes to the image of Santa Monica as a place of
beauty, creativity and individuality in that the project is well designed, uses high
quality material which will improve the building's appearance in a manner that
integrates well into the neighborhood context. The proposed building is
Spanish(Mediterranean in design and demonstrates appropriate articulation as
the exterior walls vary in depth along the length of each facade. Quality
.materials, such as clay the roofs, smooth stucco, painted waod doors and
windows, ornamental wrought iron railings and gates and details that are
accentuate the chosen architectural concept. The building mass is broken by an
interior courtyard along Seventeenth Street, and by a large second floor balcony
along Montana Avenue. The project is appropriately pedestrian oriented and will =
contribute positively to the overall aesthetics of the streetscape.
B. The proposed building or structure is not of inferior quality such as to cause the
nature of the local neighborhood or environment to materially depreciate in
appearance and value in that high quality material, such as wood framed
windows, decorative wrought ironworks and clay roof tile, as detailed in the
application submittal and as presented to the Planning Commission will be used.
C. .The proposed design of the building or structure is compatible with developments
on land in the general area in that the proposed project is consistent with all R2
development standards, is lower than the maximum permitted height of 30 feet,
and proposes setbacks that exceed those required by Code. The scale and
height of the project is also compatible with the structures found in the existing
R1 single family neighborhood to the immediate north of the subject site. In
addition, the project has incorporated significant design elements to enhance its
3
pedestrian orientation, including upper story balconies, street level glazing and a
colorful landscaping plant palette.
D. The proposed development conforms. to the effective guidelines and standards
adopted pursuant to Chapter 9,32 -Architectural Review Board, and ill other
applicable ordinances insofar as the location and appearance of the buildings
and structures are involved. Specifically, the location and appearance of the
buildings-and structures comply with required findings set forth in Chapter 9.32,
as documented by the Architectural Review Board, and as conditioned, the plans
will fully comply with all applicable regulations prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
CONDITIONS:
1. This approval is for those plans dated September 3, 2008, 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 othewise specified in these
conditions of approval
2. This approval shall expire when the administrative or discretionary entitlements
previously granted by an associated approval have lapsed. If nd such permit has
been issued, this approval shall expire one. year from its effective -date, unless
appealed or otherwise implemented pursuant to applicable municipal regulations.
3. Prior- to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate
compliance with the City's Water Conservation Ordinance subject to staff
approval. Modifications to the landscape plan that effect less than 150 square
feet of area may be reviewed and approved by the Staff Liaison to the Board.
4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that the
s plans comply with all applicable provisions of the Zoning:Ordinance. Significant
changes to a project's design shall require review and approval of the
Architectural Review Board.. Minor changes may be approved administratively
pursuant to all applicable guidelines.
VOTE: Appeal 08-013
Ayes: Davis, Koning, Newbold, O'Day, Pugh, Ries
Nays: Johnson
Abstain:
Absent:
4
NOTICE
If this is a final dtcisidn r~ot'S€ibje'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
determinatio of the Plan ' g Commission of the City of Santa Monica.
l/Sod
Terry O'Day, hairper n Date
I hereby agree to the above conditions of approval and acknowledge that failure to
comply with such conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the
permit approval
Print Name and Title Da e
ATTACHMENT C
Planning Commission Staff Reports (without attachments)
September 17, 2008, November 5, 2008
19
Planning Commission Meeting: September 17, 2008
Agenda Item: 8_B
To: Planning Commission
From: Amanda Schachter, City Planning Division Manager
Subject: Appeal 08-013 of the Architectural Review Board's approval of ARB 08-118
Address: 749 Seventeenth Street
Applicant: Charles Rosenbleet
Appellant: Montana Neighborhood Coalition/Ron Goldman
Recommended Action
It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions pursuant to
findings contained in Attachment B:
1. Deny appeal O8APP013 and uphold the Architectural Review Board's approval of
ARB 08-118, subject to findings and conditions contained in the Statement of
Official Action.
2. Adopt the Statement of Official Action
Executive Summary
The applicant is proposing a two-story senior group housing project that is
Spanish/Mediterranean in style, color and material palette. The Architectural Review
Board reviewed and approved the project design on July 21, 2008, subject to the
condition that the applicant work with staff to refine certain portions of the project
through building design and landscaping enhancements. On July 31, 2008, a timely
appeal of this approval was filed by the Montana Neighborhood Coalition and Ron
Goldman, based on neighborhood environmental issues, neighborhood compatibility
and certain transportation-related design issues.
The following issues should be considered by the Planning Commission ih its review of
the proposed project and are addressed in this report:
• Is the project design compatible within the context of the neighborhood and
overall, will it be an aesthetic enhancement to the City?
• Is the approval of the project design contrary to the ARB guidelines and
standards for the review of projects as alleged by the appellants?
Background
On December 14, 2006, an application for a Conditional Use Permit (06CUP022) and
Tentative Map (06TM046) were filed for an air space subdivision and construction of
1
three condominium units, seven senior group housing units and a 48-person adult care
facility. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to identify and analyze the
project related impacts. The Draft EIR was released for comment. During this extended
time period, the applicant, as well as staff, proactively sought community input on the
project by conducting a number of community meetings. On October 16, 2007 more
than 85 neighbors and other interested persons attended astaff-sponsored/facilitated
event to vet the project and provide input. The comments received at that meeting
mainly concerned the anticipated traffic, circulation and parking impacts and operational
concerns. The project design was discussed by staff, but few public comments were
received relating to this issue. Overall, the meeting attendees expressed little support
for the project. In light of the community response, the applicant chose to reconsider
the project scope and pursue the construction of a 17-unit senior group housing facility
instead. A senior group housing project is a preferred project in the R2 zoning district.
that is ministerial in its review and approval. Only the design of the project, through the
ARB, is subject to formal public review.
Project /Site Information
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 A.
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:
R2
Low Density Housing/
Single Family
Dwelling
17,880
2 parcels 60' x 149'
10 residential
apartment units (built
in 1939 & 1943)
10 units withdrawn
under the Ellis Act
North: R1, single
family residence
South: R2, Montana
Avenue Branch
Library
East: R2, 2-story
single family
residence and
apartments
West: C2,
commercial
0.1
,. ~.
~z ;
Site Location Map
~e
a 4~ec
o~
o~
s~
er
2
Environmental Analysis
The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) in that, as further detailed in this
staff report, it can be seen with certainty that the proposed project does not have the
potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The project is a permitted
use in the district and will be developed consistent with all R2 development standards.
The proposed 17-room senior group project will be 2 stories and 26.5 feet tall. Reviewl
of these basic development standards is ministerial as part of the City's plan check
process and is not subject to ARB review. Instead, ARB's review is limited to issues
related to the architecture, landscaping, and aesthetic nature of a project. More
specifically; ARB's review of the proposed project involves an assessment of design-
related issues associated with the proposed structure in terms of general architectural
design, proposed materials, colors, mechanical screening and/or landscape plans.
Given this limited scope of review, the ARB does not have the authority through this
review to address issues of traffic, air quality, driveway width safety, and increased
demand upon municipal services such as water, sewage, and other utilities and
emergency services. The Planning Commission review authority of. an ARB appeal is
similarly limited. Consequently, the ARB review process does not allow the ARB, and
the Planning Commission on appeal, to respond to any of these concerns even if they
were identified in an environmental impact report as creating potentially significant
environmental impacts.
Given the location of the project, the location of the existing structures on the site, the
surrounding developments, and. the proposed design of the project, it can be seen with
certainty that the project will not have the potential for causing a significant impact
related to aesthetics, cultural resources, or shadows. Indeed, the design review
process itself serves to ensure that the project will not degrade the visual character. or
aesthetics of the general area. Additionally, while demolition of the existing structures
are not within the ARB's purview, the Landmarks Commission considered the
demolition permit applications on February 18, 2007 and determined that the existing
structures do not warrant nomination as a designated City Landmark or Structure of
Merit. Staff also subsequently prepared a historic resources report for the existing
structures which reached the same conclusion. Finally, the shadows cast onto adjacent
properties by the existing on-site buildings are greater than the shadows that would be
cast by the proposed project and are limited in duration. The shadow analysis and.
historic resource analysis discussed above were conducted in the context of a draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the previously proposed discretionary
project which would have had different land uses but would have been designed in a
manner nearly identical to the design currently proposed in terms of height, setback,
mass, scale and siting. This draft EIR is on file with the City's Planning Department.
Project Analysis
The project site consists of two lots and is currently developed with multi-family
buildings containing a total of ten units built in 1939 and 1943. All units have been
removed from Rent Control and would be demolished as part of the project. The design
3
of the building is the result of significant interaction between staff and the. project
architect, particularly in areas of building articulation and fenestration, the need to
provide a dynamic focal point at the corner intersection of Seventeenth Street and
Montana Avenue, refinement of the Montana Avenue elevation through subtle
manipulations of wall plane (particularly at the entry area), and refinement of the window
placement.
The proposed building is a Spanish/Mediterranean-style "U"-shaped structure with clay
tileroofs, smooth stucco, painted wood doors and windows, ornamental wrought iron
railings and gates and details that are consistent with the chosen architectural concept.
Additional features, such as the exposed rafter tails, wood corbels, and the use of
divided lights on the windows and doors accentuates the intended style. The side and
front elevations demonstrate appropriate articulation as the exterior walls vary in depth
along the length of each facade. The buildings are also vertically articulated to break up
the -mass of the structure into a series of smaller components. Staff believes that
overall, the project will enhance the Montana Avenue and Seventeenth Street
streetscapes. One. of the project's most distinguishing characteristic is the covered
outdoor arcade along the Seventeenth Street elevation. It is thoughtful in placement,
generously setback from the street, and features graceful curved arches that frame a
covered patio. This elevation also features outdoor balconies on the second floor that
overlook the landscaped front yard and create an inviting presence along the street.
The building mass along this street is broken by an interior courtyard visible from the
street. This private space is secured by an ornamental wrought iron gate.
The Montana Avenue- (south) elevation features a large glazed entry which is also
appropriately setback from the property line. The applicant successfully introduces
building recesses that create a central covered entry. The increased building
articulation allows for increased permanent and potted landscaping and other amenities
such as a decorative fountain to improve the pedestrian orientation of the fapade and
the overall aesthetics of the streetscape. The second floor balconies heighten the
interaction with the street.
The north and .east elevations, which are not- highly visible to the public right-of-way,
provide changes in building plane, articulation and .second floor balconies which
overlook the substantial garden areas below.
Pedestrian Orientation
The project demonstrates a strong pedestrian orientation. The project's courtyard is
oriented toward Seventeenth Street and is secured' by a visually transparent wrought
iron gate. The main entrance to the facility is oriented toward Montana Avenue and
features a large amount of glazing to allow for visual permeability into the building's
entry lobby: There is ample landscaping along both street frontages, particularly at the'
corner of Seventeenth Street and Montana Avenue. The Montana Avenue elevation
also features a fountain. The second floor balconies of the individual living spaces
engage the street and increase the interaction between the building and its residents
4
and. the pedestrians along the sidewalks. These elements help create a strong
connection between the neighborhood and the project.
Neighborhood Compatibility
In general, the project is a compatible addition to the neighborhood in terms of height,
size, and scale. The. project is consistent with all R2 development standards and is
Tower than the maximum permitted height of 30 feet. As noted. above, the project has
incorporated significant design elements to enhance its pedestrian orientation.
DESIGN
ELEMENTS PROPOSED`EXTERIOR
MATERIAL, FINISH AND COLOR
Far~ade Stucco: 7/8" 20-30 fine stucco - Honeytone (light yellow);
Ancient Earth medium brown -exterior trim paint
Windows Custom wood framed, clear glazing
Brown Oak- Composites Gurea Parklex -window and trim
paint
Doors Custom wood framed -clear lazin
Roof Red clay file -Mallorca
Mechanical
Screenin Mechanical equipment located in the subterranean garage
Refuse Screening Refuse/recycle area located in subterranean garage and a
trash room is located within the buildin on the first floor.
Li htin Wall-mounted fixtures
Trellis/ Awning/
Canop N/A
Railin s VVrou ht iron
Wall Cement plaster
Seventeenth Street elevation (west)
North elevation
East elevation
Montana Avenue elevation (south)
Site Plan/Lai
. qil{::
,;, ;
~ ~ ~.,,.
,,,._
f V. in y!
llll't A lI! n'~'
} L4[ 'F"rt'
~..fOg4%. ;r'r.
!I p[
!1.(f3lau y
S'V F;i y:115f::
]fi{R.c1 .. __~,
p:Y.RS?2
t I -I 13=
i+Ltv i
Architectural Review Board Action
On July 21, 2008, the project was presented to the ARB for consideration. At the
commencement of the hearing, the Board was reminded of its limited scope of review.
After hearing from 20 members. of the public and in consideration of their testimony,
both for and against .the project (and its design), and also confirming with staff the
project's compliance with certain Code standards relative to building size and
placement, the Board members concluded that the .proposed project is a good example
of the Spanish Mediterranean style particularly in its color palette and choice of quality
materials. The Board also found that the scale and mass are appropriate within the
context of the neighborhood. The Board did express. concern with certain "blank" areas
on the Montana Avenue elevation, and a need for additional articulation on the north
7
and east elevations. The introduction of vining plant species and/or espaliers were
noted as being an appropriate response to address this concern. The loading area was
also identified as an area of concern that could benefit from additional screening to
lessen impacts on the adjacent property. The Board unanimously voted to approve the
project design with the added condition for the applicant to work with staff on plan
revisions in response to the identified concerns. The Statement of Official Action
(STOA) and the July 21, 2008 staff reports and minutes are included as attachments.
The project plans before the Commission illustrate the project design as conditioned by
the Board in response to the concerns raised during the public hearing. Specific
changes include:
Minor fenestration changes on the north elevation to include two additional
casement windows at the northwest corner of the building. This is in response to
the Board's concern about the "blankness" of certain portions of this facade; and
• Design revisions to the south and east elevations adding building insets with
decorative ironwork and the introduction of vine pockets; the .inclusion of a
building opening with wrought iron rail along the ramp to the garage; and, the
addition of decorative the work that further accentuates the Spanish
Mediterranean design. These changes address the expressed concerns for
further articulation and refinement to these specific elevations.
Appeal Analysis
On July 31, 2008, an appeal was filed by the Montana Neighborhood Coalition and Ron
Goldman disputing the Architectural Review Board's .approval of the building design,
colors, materials and landscaping plans for the subject senior group housing project:
Many of the issues raised by the appellants are outside the jurisdiction of the ARB, and
the Planning Commission on appeal. For ease of review, this report first addresses the
issues properly within the Planning Commission's purview and then lists the issues not
appropriately before this body.
"Trash area should not be exposed to the sidewalk at Montana. but should be screened
behind the sidevard setback";
The trash area referenced in the appeal statemenf is the temporary trash staging
area where trash bins are temporarily placed on pick-up days. The plans identify
the permanent trash storage location as being within the subterranean parking
garage.
During deliberation, the ARB also raised this concern regarding the visual
impacts of the loading space on the adjacent property and added a condition
requiring the applicant to strengthen the visual buffer. The plans before the
s
Commission incorporate wrought iron fencing and landscaping to visually screen
this area.
"Clarify the perimeter fence design and. material":
A note on the plans indicates that the perimeter fence will consist of a cement
plaster wall (six feet in height) with a color to match the proposed building.
Additionally, wrought iron fencing with cement plaster pilasters is proposed along
the perimeter of Seventeenth Street. The height of this wall may not exceed 42
inches. Both of these features are compatible in terms of design and material
with the building's Spanish Mediterranean architecture.
"Whv don't the North and East elevations have somewhat the same character as the 2
street elevations? Whv should adjacent homes see the "back side"? Whv shouldn't the
architect provide a rendering of the north and east as well as the south and west?"
The overall project design intent (Spanish Mediterranean) is consistently applied
to all exterior elevations with all elevations given equal design consideration. All
elevations also feature detailing, such as wood rafter tails, wood-framed windows
and decorative iron works, that accentuate the architectural style. Also as noted,
the applicant has revised the project plans in response to the ARB's concerns by
further articulating the less visible elevations. Colored three-dimensional
renderings have been provided depicting the proposed project from the most-
publicly visible perspectives, consistent with other ARB submittals.
"There is no clear delineation of units on the east elevations as Sec. 9.04.08.06.070(g)
requires. The initial plan showed more sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood";
The design of the east elevation includes upper story balconies that reduce the
overall appearance of mass and add vertical movement to this facade. These
balconies also are a means of providing some delineation to each of the
individual living quarters.
"The adjacent houses and apartment buildinps north of Montana are smaller in scale.
This is a typical apartment building on the north and east sides, not the scale which
reflects the adjacent single family homes. The 114 ft. long north elevation and the 104
Staff notes that the north elevation includes building off-sets and recesses, upper
story balconies, and extensive fenestration to break the mass of the structure into
smaller components. Detailing similar to that on the more publicly visible
elevations is also proposed. On the east elevation, similar design treatments are
also applied to achieve the overall design intent. The height and scale of the
project will also be compatible with the R1 single-family neighborhood to the
immediate north of the subject site.
"'side and front elevations demonstrate appropriate articulation' -but not on the east
elevatioh which requires clear delineation between individual units (9.04.08.06.070(8))"
As previously noted, the design utilizes upper story balconies to articulate the
east elevation and as a means of delineating each of the individual living
quarters.
"'vehicular access to site currently provided to Montana' -but also to 17~h St."
The appellant's comment is correct. Vehicular access to the subterranean
garage is provided from Montana Avenue and access to the loading zone is
provided from Seventeenth Street.
"'freight loading stall accessed from Montana'- wronp, it is accessed from 17~h St."
The appellant's statement is correct. Access to the loading zone is provided from
Seventeenth Street.
"'design of building represents significant interaction between staff and project architect'
- whatever is drawn simply meets code or is out of code with respect to density. lot
coverage, etc., (9.04.08.06.060(c), and (9.04.10.02.240) and (9.04.06.060) and
(9.04.12.070Z'
Staff and the applicant have worked cooperatively to not only ensure compliance
with Code requirements but to also refine the design to reflect the overall
Spanish/Mediterranean design intent. In addition, and as previously stated, staff
has conducted a preliminary review of the project for compliance with the
applicable zoning standards prior to ARB consideration. A thorough and
complete project assessment occurs during the plan check stage of review. If at
that time any Code discrepancies are found and impacts on the design are
noted, the process allows for the design modification to return to the Board for its
review and consideration, if necessary.
"'2"d floor balconies overlook the substantial gardens below' -certainly not the 8 ft. side
yards, but instead overlook the neighbor's gardens."
Although staff was primarily referencing the balconies along the Seventeenth
Street elevation in this comment, it should be noted that the project design
includes an extensive palette of plant materials that add color and character to
the project design. These plantings are interspersed throughout the site and will
be visible from the balconies located throughout the project.
10
"'the proiect appears to be a compatible addition to the neighborhood in height, size and.
scale' - lust look at an aerial view of the size and scale of the adjacent houses and
apartment building on the north side of Montana, the prior submittal referred to in the
staff report was considerably more successful (9.32.140(c))."
Based on the evidentiary record submitted to the ARB, the Board concluded that
the scale and mass of the project are appropriate within the context of the
neighborhood. Staff supports this determination.
"'the Landmarks Commission determined the existing structures do not warrant
nomination' -according to the minutes of the Commission "NO ACTION TAKEN""
On February 12, 2007, the Landmarks Commission reviewed the proposed
Demolition Permits and took no further action toward filing an application for
designation of the structures as City Landmarks or Structures of Merit.
`°ARB does not have authority to address issues of traffic, driveway width safety' -not
true according to the ARB guidelines, standards and criteria as spelled out in the code
(9.32.040)"
Section 9.32.140 establishes the criteria that governs the scope of the ARB's
review of this proiect. These criteria are:
A. The plan for the proposed building or structure is expressive of
good taste, good design, and in general contributes to the image of
Santa Monica as a place of beauty, creativity and individuality.
B. The proposed building. or structure is not of inferior quality such as
to cause the nature of the local neighborhood or environment to
materially depreciate in appearance and value.
C. The proposed design of the building or structure is compatible with
developments on land in the general area.
D. The proposed development is in conformity with the effective
guidelines and standards adopted pursuant to this chapter and all
other applicable ordinances insofar as the location and appearance
of the buildings and structures are involved.
The criteria established in the Guidelines are similarly circumscribed.
"'staff has spent considerable time and effort ensuring that the proiect complies with
code' -wrong with regard to density, and parcel coverage, and urban design issues
(9.04.08.06.060(c)) and (9.04.10.02.240) and (9.04.12.070)"
Staff and the applicant have worked cooperatively to not only ensure compliance
with Code requirements but to also refine the design to reflect the overall
Spanish/Mediterranean design intent. In addition, and as previously stated, staff
conducts a preliminary review of any project for compliance with the applicable
11
zoning standards prior to ARB consideration, and has determined that the project
complies with all applicable Code requirements. A thorough and complete
project code compliance assessment occurs during the plan check stage of
review. If at that time any Code discrepancies are found and impacts on the
design are noted, the process allows for the design modification to return to the
Board for its review and consideration.
"proposed setbacks that exceed those required by code'-wrong again, they only meet
minimum requirements (9.04.08.06.070(f))"
Although the project design meets the minimum base front, rear and side setback
requirements (i.e. minimum front yard setback of 20 feet; rear yard setback of 15 feet;
and, sideyard setback of eight feet), the applicant has exceeded- the additional front
yard setback area requirement by approximately 51 square feet and the additional two-
foot sideyard setback area (required on each floor on each side elevation) by at least 30
square feet.
`;4t a minimum, the driveway transition and ramo should start 70 ft. from the sidewalk
for pedestrian safetyl
This issue is outside of the purview of the Architectural Review Board and thus
the Planning Commission on appeal. The ARB's review is limited to issues
related to the architecture, landscaping, and aesthetic nature of a project. More
specifically, ARB's review of the proposed project involves an assessment of
design-related issues associated with the proposed structure in terms of general
architectural design, proposed materials, colors, mechanical screening and/or
landscape plans. Given this limited scope of review, the ARB does not have the
authority through this review to address issues of traffic, air quality, driveway
width safety, and increased demand upon municipal services such as water,
sewage, and other utilities and emergency services. Issues of safety of driveway
design are addressed prior to the issuance of building permit during the formal
plan check review.
"Move pate to bottom of ramp to allow stacking of 2 cars on site rather than across the
sidewalk";
This issue is outside of the purview of the Architectural Review Board and thus
the Planning Commission on appeal. Driveway design issues are addressed
prior to the issuance of building permit during the formal plan check review.
"The loading space should allow for 30 ft. trucks and have aturn-a-round on site":
This issue is outside of the purview of the Architectural Review Board and thus
the Planning Commission on appeal. The minimum dimensional requirements
for loading spaces are ten feet in width, 20 feet in length, and a vertical clearance
12
of 14 feet. Parking and loading design issues are addressed prior to the
issuance of building permit during the formal plan check review.
`Reduce density from 17 to 12 units per code (sec. 9.04.12.070(b))";
Although outside of the ARB purview, senior group housing, as defined in SMMC
Section 9.04.02.030.765 is a building or buildings, including a single family
dwelling, that provides residence for a group of senior citizens with a central
kitchen and dining facilities and separate bedroom or private living quarters.
Development standards for Senior Group Housing Standards are contained in
Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.04.10.02.141: Subsection (a)
of this section allows senior group housing projects to exceed the district's
density of dwelling units under specified circumstances - "if the dwelling units
consist of individual rooms that contain full bathrooms and small, efficiency
kitchens and if the dwelling units are located in a building that also contains a
common kitchen, dining and living space, adequate to serve all residents."
Under this definition, the senior group residence is viewed as one dwelling unit
and exempt from the unit density standards of the R2 district. Given that the
project design includes common kitchen, dining and living facilities, as well as
other on-site amenities such as a gym, sauna, and courtyard common area, the
project density may be increased to the proposed density.
"Maximum parcel coverage-appears to exceed code on both 1St and 2"d floors":
The Code establishes a maximum first floor parcel coverage of 50 percent of the
parcel area, which equates to 8,940 square feet, and a maximum second floor
coverage of 90 percent of the first floor, equaling 8,046 square feet. The project.
specific numbers are a compliant 8,906 square feet (49%) and 6,732 square feet
(83.7% of first floor), respectively. In general, at this stage of the review process,
staff conducts a preliminary review of'any project for compliance with the
applicable zoning standards. Typically, a thorough and complete project
assessment occurs during the plan check stage of review. If at that time any
Code discrepancies are found and impacts on the design are noted, the process
allows for the design modification to return to the Board for its review and
consideration, if necessary.
"CEQA status - "project can be seen with certainty there is no potential for causinp a
significant effect on the environment" -not accordiha to a litany of provisions in the
zoning code and general plan as .well as the traffic letter of Julv 3 2008 from the city's
traffic consultant (see list of 16 sections re: design, density and public safety issues)"
See Environmental Analysis section on pages 2 and 3 of this report.
13
"'shadows cast onto adjacent properties by existing on-site buildings are greater than
the shadows that would be cast by the proposed project'-absolutely wrong!!"
A shadow analysis was conducted in the context of a draft EIR for a previously
proposed discretionary project which would have had different land uses but
would have been designed in a manner nearly identical to the design currently
proposed in terms of height, setbacks, -mass, scale and siting.
`PUBLIC SAFETY -After 7 months of the neiahbors questioning public safety issues.
the city's traffic consultant finally agrees "the bidirectional one-lane driveway from
Montana Avenue is problematic, that entering vehicles would not be able to see exitina
vehicles and entering vehicles would at times need to back out onto Montana Avenue
and that it is not safe and appropriate for backing maneuvers to occur and that parked
vehicles would limit available sight lines."
This issue is outside of the purview of the Architectural Review Board and thus
the Planning Commission on appeal. Issues pertaining to traffic and
transportation are addressed prior to the issuance of building permit during the
formal plan check review.
"LOADING SPACE -Again after the neighbors brought it to staff's attention that a
opposite (See Kassan letter of Julv 18, 2008) and the necessity of accommodating
delivery trucks larger than 20 feet."
As stated previously, this issue is outside of the purview of the Architectural
Review Board and thus the Planning Commission on appeal. Issues pertaining
to traffic and transportation are addressed prior to the issuance of building permit
during the formal plan check review.
`EXACERBATE ON-STREET PARKING - "The proposed project provides 9 spaces in
excess of code as well as larger than required loading area" -wrong on both accounts
as code requires 9 resident spaces. 3 quest spaces, 1 passenger loading space, and
employee parking for +/- 3.5 staff leaving 1-3 excess spaces at most and the loading
space is clearly hot adequate for the majority of delivery trucks, further adding to
parking demand Cc~ this busy intersection."
This issue is outside of the purview of the Architectural Review Board and thus
the Planning Commission on appeal. Senior group housing facilities have a
minimum parking requirement of 0.5 spaces per unit plus one guest space for
every five units. Staff has concluded that the project meets the parking
requirement.
14
"BACKING ONTO MONTANA - "independent review concluded entering westbound
motorists would be able to see cars Ca. bottom of ramp before entering" -not true,
independent review does not say this!"
U6LG,nuUQUVII. IICI/IJNVI LOL/VII IVIQIIQyGIIIGIIL VVIII Icl.Vl/114U/c IVIVI/LQIIQl1VC/IIAC - Ql
not true, and compounded with the wrong correction based on wrong determination"
vcl nL,lw - aL ulc c~cu
serving 2 bus routes!"
This issue is outside of the purview of the Architectural Review Board and thus
the Planning Commission on appeal
years."-once again not true as there is a substantial on-site turn-a-round space for 4
This issue is outside of the purview of the Architectural Review Board and thus
the Planning Commission on appeal
"INADEQUATE LOADING SPACE - "trucks in excess of 20 ft. will be prohibited" -
FedEx, UPS, moving vans, furniture delivery trucks, food deliveries all in excess of 20 ft.
- where is it suggested that they park?!!"
""interim added for more convenient use of loading space for passenger pickup and
dropoft" -again totally unrealistic!"
This issue is outside of the purview of the Architectural Review Board and thus
the Planning Commission on appeal.
"EXACERBATE MONTANA TRAFFIC - "field observations support that cars don't
remain in queue longer than one signal cycle" -not true based on 11 years of driving
through this intersection at least twice daily along with growth of future traffic and the
"occasional" car backing into Montana"
""wider driveway increases pedestrian conflict with motorists. loses public parking and
comes closer to buses and intersection" -not true vet again as the driveway is currently
33 feet wide to serve a 4 car garage and would actually be reduced. moving further from
intersection and shortening pedestrian exposure to cars!"
""restricting access better as it maximizes available parking improves pedestrian
conditions, allows for better driveway location and minimizes conflicts with Montana
traffic"-another fabrication by transportation management."
15
This issue is outside of the purview of the Architectural Review Board and thus
the Planning Commission on appeal.
Alternative Actions:
In addition to the recommended action, the Planning Commission could consider the
following with respect to the project:
A1. Remand the project back to the Architectural Review Board for further review and
consideration.
A2. Continue the project to consider any alternatives identified during the public
hearing.
A3. Articulate revised findings and conditions to approve the subject application.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the appeal be denied. Many of the issues raised by the
appellants are outside of the purview of the Architectural Review Board. Staff believes
that the proposed design of the senior group housing facility is consistent in its Spanish
Mediterranean design approach, utilizes quality materials and is suitably articulated to
create a project that is harmonious and compatible within the context of the
neighborhood.
Prepared by: Scott Albright, Associate Planner
Steve Traeger, Urban Designer
Gina Szilak, Assistant Planner
Attachments
A. Draft Statement of Official Action (not provided)
B. Public Notification Material (not provided)
C. Appeal Statement (not provided)
D. ARB Staff Report (not provided)
E. ARB Statement of Official Action (not provided)
F. Project Plans (not provided)
t6
~ Supplemental Planning
°LY°` Commission Report
Santa Dlonica
Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2008
Agenda Item: 88=A
To: Planning Commission
From: Amanda Schachter, City Planning Division Manager
Subject: Appeal 08-013 of the Architectural Review Board's approval of ARB 08-118
Address: 749 Seventeenth Street
Applicant: Charles Rosenbleet
Appellant: Montana Neighborhood Coalition/Ron Goldman
Recommended Action
It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions pursuant to
findings contained in Attachment A:
1. Deny appeal 08APP013 and uphold the Architectural Review Board's approval of
ARB 08-118, subject to findings and conditions contained in the Statement of
Official Action.
2. Adopt the Statement of Official Action
Executive Summary
The applicant is proposing atwo-story senior group housing project, with seventeen
individual living quarters, that is Spanish/Mediterranean in style, color and material
palette. The Architectural Review Board reviewed and approved the project design,
however this decision was appealed based on neighborhood environmental issues,
neighborhood compatibility and certain transportation-related issues. On September
17, 2008, the Planning Commission considered the appeal and the project design as a
whole, but opted to continue the project in order to allow the applicant more time to
address issues of garage access design, building articulation, privacy concerns. and
loading/drop-off. The previous Planning Commission staff report is included for
reference (Attachment C)
The following issues should be considered by the Planning Commission in its review of
the proposed project and are addressed in this report:
• Has the project applicant adequately addressed the Commission's previous
concerns?
• Is the proposed building design expressive of good taste, good design, and does
it generally contribute to the image of Santa Monica as a place of beauty,
creativity and individuality?
1
Is the proposed building design compatible within the context of the
neighborhood?
Background
The proposed senior group housing facility, with seventeen individual living quarters; is
designed in a Spanish/Mediterranean-style. The design features quality materials, such
as clay the roofs, smooth stucco, wood doors and windows, and ornamental wrought
iron details that reinforce this style. All elevations demonstrate appropriate articulation
to break up the mass of the structure into a series of smaller components. The
Montana Avenue and Seventeenth Street elevations also introduce building
componehts that heighten the pedestrian orientation of the project.
Prior Planning Commission Action
On September 17, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed the project design, and
after hearing testimony from 21 speakers, the applicant and appellants, and deliberating
on the design of the project and its impacts within the context of the neighborhood,
voted to continue the project to a later date. The Commission discussed and debated
many issues, including the protection of privacy for adjacent residents and the level of
environmental review. However, ultimately, the Commission summarized the most
contentious issues noted throughout the discussion and provided the applicant with
comments on the drop-off areas, driveway width, building articulation and identified
specific areas where redesign efforts should be focused.
• Drop-Off area: One of the appellants presented a proposal for a circular drive
along Seventeenth Street to serve a dual purpose of providing off-street
passenger drop-off/pick-up and to fulfill required on-site loading requirements.
The Commission considered the impacts of such a proposal on the site design,
particularly the loss of landscaping, both in and outside of the public right-of-way
and other aesthetic impacts along Seventeenth Street. A general concern of
potential traffic impacts on the street was noted. In general, a majority of the
Commission did not support the circular drive concept.
Given that the majority of the Commission did not react positively to the circular
drive consideration along Seventeenth Street, the original design remains intact.
The loading zone will be accessed from Seventeenth Street and any on-site
passenger drop-off will occur within the subterranean garage.
• Driveway width: The subterranean garage access originally presented to the
Planning Commission was proposed as a single, twelve foot wide lane. The
appellants contended that this driveway width was not safe and. requested that a
double driveway be mandated. Certain Commissioners agreed that atwo-lane
subterranean garage access would be a more appropriate design response; and
as indicated, the Commission continued the hearing so that the applicant could
assess this issue. There was also agreement among the Commission that the
applicants voluntary efforts to include an audible and visual signaling system
would enhance public safety and encouraged the retention of this system. The
impacts of a widened driveway on pedestrian traffic were noted, but there was
also agreement that regardless of the eventual width, it would be ah
z
improvement upon the current conditions of a combined curb cut that is
approximately 27 feet in width.
The Zoning Ordinance establishes the standards for driveway and ramp widths
and vests the Zoning Administrator and City Parking and Traffic Engineer with
authority to approve width reductions. This authority is exercised in the context
of project plan check review.. Given these express zoning standards, the ARB,
and the Planning Commission acting as the ARB, does not have jurisdiction to
require project modifications to address potential driveway width safety issues.
However, in response to the concerns expressed at the September 17th hearing
regarding the subterranean garage access, the applicant has chosen to redesign
the garage access to provide a modified two lane design. In order to allow the
safe passage of two motor vehicles on-site, and eliminate the potential for any
back-up maneuvering onto Montana Avenue, the access drive to the
subterranean parking garage has been widened to eighteen feet for a length of
seventeen feet from the back of sidewalk to the interior of the site. The driveway
then incrementally reduces in width to twelve feet at the actual garage entry
point. A portion of the drive will be striped to clearly delineate travel lanes. The
curb cut will also be widened to eighteen feet. Additionally, the applicant has
retained a visual signaling system to warn of approaching traffic and added a
sign prohibiting backing-up at the garage entry. The City's Transportation
Management Division has reviewed the proposal and concurs with its design and
its ability to allow two cars to pass on the driveway. Because of this design
change, the Division will not require any turn restrictions on Montana Avenue.
3
~. f
----
~~ I°
• Building articulation: A suggestion by the appellant to break up the building mass
generated a discussion amongst Commissioners about the building design in
general. A majority of the Commission generally supported the proposed
building design, but also noted that the inclusion of an arch over the
subterranean garage access would improve the composition of the Montana
Avenue elevation. All were in agreement with this specific suggestion,
In response, the applicant has made a minor revision to the building design along
the. Montana Avenue elevation. The original design included a wooden belt
course with exposed rafter tails along the entire southeast portion of the facade.
The applicant has removed this feature. In order to respond to the Commission's.
request for an arch over the garage entry, the applicant's design includes a wood
belt course only over the garage entry with wood corbels bracing it at the
corners. This change suggests an arch design element. Although staff
appreciates this reference and the consistent use of wood material, staff notes
that the overall geometry of the arch appears inconsistent with the central arch of
this elevation and other arches on the building.
In addition to these specific revisions, other changes to the plans are also noted in
response to the Commission's discussion. The landscaping plans have been revised to
4
enhance the protection of the privacy of adjacent residences. The revised plans show
the strategic placement of additional canopy trees along the north and east elevations to
act as a screen to the upper level balconies. The addition of a vine pocket is also
noted in the loading area. The plant material will be weaved into the wrought iron
fencing to better. camouflage loading activity from adjacent residents. Finally, the roof
plan and all elevations have been revised to depict chimney and vent shafts which gives
the Commission a more accurate and complete depiction of the project design.
Seventeenth Street elevation (west)
Nnrfh elevation
Fact elevation
i
,t
~i
~I
5
Montana Avenue elevation (south)
Site Plan/Landscaping Plan
i ~. 3 ~ .
..
: ~.y ~ T` r`- ~
~ .~ ~ ~
;
i
'~ .-. i I i :'
~ ...
i'
- ~
,_
G
r r ~;._
~7
= 1
~n
~ . .
J" ~'
i - ,. .
n ~
~;
Alternative Actions:
In addition to the recommended action, the Planning Commission could consider the
following with respect to the project:
A1. Remand the project back to the Architectural Review Board for further review and
consideration..
A2. Continue the project to consider any alternatives identified during the public
hearing.
A3. Articulate revised findings and conditions to approve the subject application.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the appeal be denied. Several of the issues raised by the
appellants are outside of the purview of the Architectural Review Board.
Notwithstanding this, the applicant has redesigned the project to address these
concerns. Staff believes that the proposed design of the senior group housing facility is
consistent in its Spanish Mediterranean. design approach, utilizes quality materials and
is suitably articulated to create a project that is harmonious and compatible within the
context of the neighborhood.
6
Prepared by: Scott Albright, Senior Planner
Steve Traeger, Urban Designer
Attachments
A. Draft Statement of Official Action (not provided)
B. Public Notification Material (not provided)
C. September 17, 2008 Staff Report (not provided)
D. Appeal Statement (not provided)
E. ARB Staff Report (not provided)
F. ARB Statement of Official Action (not provided)
G. Public. Correspondence (not provided)
H. Project Plans (not provided)
3
4
5
6
7
8