Loading...
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