Loading...
sr-092209-6a~~ ~;,Ya, City Council Report Santa Monica - City Council Meeting: September 22, 2009 Agenda Item: To: Mayor and City Council From: Eileen P. Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development Subject: Appeals of Planning Commission approval of a Variance and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for the property located at 1012 Second Street Recommended Action Staff recommends the City Council deny appeals 09APP-004, 09APP-005, and 09APP- 006 and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Variance 08VAR-022 and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map OSTM-011 for the property located at 1012 Second Street based on the findings and conditions contained in this staff report. Executive Summary This report supports the approval of Variance and Tentative Parcel Map applications filed by the property owner, 1012 Second Street LLC, for construction of a four-unit condominium project that includes retention and rehabilitation of an existing City Landmark designated Turn-of-the-Century Victorian Cottage and construction of three new condominium units on the rear of the parcel located at 1012 Second Street. In order to make possible the on-site retention and rehabilitation of the existing Landmark designated Turn-of-the-Century Victorian Cottage (constructed circa 1898- 1902), the applicant requested the following seven modifications to development standards subject to approval of a Variance for projects that retain and preserve designated historic resources: 1) maximum building height;. 2) maximum number of stories; 3) building volume above 35 feet in height; 4) maximum parcel coverage above 3rd story; 5) rear yard setback requirement; 6) additional 2'-0" average side yard setback requirement; and 7) unexcavated side yard requirement. This Variance procedure was specifically established for preservation projects by the City Council in 2006: On February 18, 2009, the Planning Commission unanimously approved a Variance and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for the proposed project by a 7-0 vote. On February 27, 2009, three appeals of the Planning Commission's determination were filed by Scott Taylor, Robert L. Glushon on behalf of Coalition to Protect Zoning on Second Street, and by David Green. Since all three appeals pertain to the same project applications, as a matter of efficiency, one staff report presents analysis for each of the three pending appeals. This report presents analysis of the proposed project in light of the required findings for approval of a Variance and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map; highlights the Planning Commission's action; and addresses the key points of the three appeals filed that, in summary, assert the following: • There were violations of notice requirements and the Brown Act, and failure to comply with application submittal requirements. • There is no substantial evidence to support the required Variance findings. • Environmental review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act. • The variances granted for additional height, building volume, and a fourth story are inconsistent with concerns regarding density and views. • .The project design will fundamentally alter the historic house, create congestion in the alley, and will not include adequate access to the site during construction. • The project does not comply with the City's prohibition of non-TORCH conversions. There were discrepancies between information presented by the applicant and provided in the staff report. • The project will inappropriately displace four tenants who have lived on the site for between 15 and 27 years. A more detailed discussion of the three appeals is presented below beginning on page 5 of this report. In consideration of the full record to date, including review of the appellants' appeal statements, it is recommended that the appeals be denied and the Variance and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map applications for the 1012 Second Street project be approved subject to the draft findings and conditions presented in Attachment B. Background Landmarks Commission Action The subject property at 1012 Second Street was initially reviewed by the City's Landmarks Commission in June 2005 as a result of a pending demolition permit for all structures on the parcel. In September 2005, the Commission designated the Turn-of- the-Century Victorian Cottage on site as a City Landmark and specifically excluded the non-historic, rear apartment building from the Landmark designation. In its determination to designate the Turn-of-the-Century Victorian Cottage, the Commission found that although the building's historic setting and context has been altered through the years, the residence retains a high degree of architectural and historical integrity which strongly reflects and manifests elements of the City's early -2- development and architectural history. More specifically, the residence was one of the first cottages. built within the original town site of Santa Monica and therefore helped set a precedent for future residential development in the immediate neighborhood during the early Twentieth Century. The Commission also found that the residence embodies unique late Victorian architectural desigh elements, and is one of the last intact examples of the turn-of-the-century vernacular cottage architectural -style within the original township of Santa Monica. Preliminary Discussion of Schematic Design On November 10, 2008, the Landmarks Commission held a preliminary discussion regarding the schematic design of the proposed project and expressed strong support for both the proposed treatment of the Landmark Cottage and the preliminary design of the new construction, noting that the new construction appears to be compatible with the existing resource on site and will create an elegant project that will retain a Landmark structure and introduce a distinctive new building to the neighborhood. The Commission also stated that the proposed project presents an opportunity for the historic character of the house to be celebrated, and a majority of the Commission also agreed that the design of the new construction is well conceived and given the context of the site, with three- and four-story buildings surrounding the Turn-of-the-Century Victorian Cottage, the additional height would be acceptable. Finally, the Commission stated that the character of the front and side yard landscaping and paving should reflect the historio context of the site and that selection of the final palette of materials and its relationship to the historic structure will be an area of focus during its formal design review of a Certificate of Appropriateness application. Planning Commission Action On December 11, 2008, property owner 1012 Second Street LLC filed Variance and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map .applications requesting approval of a four-unit, approximately 8,421 SF condominium project which includes the on-site retention and rehabilitation of the existing 886 SF Landmark Turn-of-the-Century Victorian Cottage. -3- On February 18, 2009, the Planning Commission, after holding a public hearing for the proposed project, voted unanimously to approve Variance 08VAR-022 and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 08TM-011 by a 7-0 vote. As detailed more fully in the February 18, 2009 meeting minutes, the Planning Commission found that the project design was well-executed and fit within the context of the neighborhood, and that there was an appropriate design relationship between the historic building and the proposed new construction. The Commission agreed that flexibility was needed for property owners who preserve historic resources and propose new development because such procedures protect the historical texture of the City and unique. qualities and character of neighborhoods. The Commission determined that the seven requested variances were appropriate and reasonable within the context of a preservation project given the existing streetscape and multi-story buildings surrounding the site. The Planning Commission also stated that from a public policy standpoint, this project was a good example of and consistent with the City Council's policy decision to create a variance process to preserve historic structures such as the Landmark Cottage at 1012 Second Street. With respect to the required Variance findings, the Planning Commission found that the retention of the designated City Landmark residence on site created special circumstances related to available parcel area for new construction compared to other similarly sized lots in the immediate area, and created special circumstances related to the design compatibility requirements for appropriately incorporating a historic resource in the project. These circumstances would not be present if the building were not a designated Landmark and could be removed to accommodate new, by-right development of residential units on the entire site. The Commission also determined that the proposed four-unit condominium project was consistent with other multi-family residential uses that are permitted in the R-3 District -4- (Medium Density Multiple Residential) for the area as it did. not exceed the maximum unit density permitted in the R-3 District, and the scale, massing, and design of the new construction on site is compatible with the scale and character of the existing Landmark residence and the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission determined that the granting of a variance would not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, or the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan; and that the variance would not impair the integrity and character of the district in that the proposed new construction is compatible with, yet differentiated from, the historic Turn-of-the-Century Victorian Cottage on site, and the proposed 3'-8" increase in building height does not overshadow adjacent residential properties due to the presence of multi-story buildings in all directions ranging in heights from approximately 38' to 50' in height.. In response to surrounding neighbors' concerns regarding potential construction impacts, the Planning Commission adopted a series of conditions of approval related to the construction period along with several other project and. landscape design-related conditions of approval. The Planning Commission's Statement of Official Action is presented as Attachment C and the February 18, 2009 meeting minutes and project staff report are presented as Attachments D and E, respectively. Discussion Aooeal Summary The three appellants state that the Variance and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map applications should have been denied by the Planning Commission. One appellant lives in the existing building on the subject site. Another appellant lives in the apartment building adjacent to the north of the project site, and another appellant lives two blocks to the north on Ocean Avenue. The .following is a summary of the appellants' statements; the full text of each appeal is presented as Attachment A: -5- Procedures • There was a violation of notice requirements. • The project does not comply with submittal requirements for a Tentative Parcel Map. • The applicant did not notify the tenant(s) of the property of the plan for a conversion. • None of the tenant(s) of the property were notified of the pending applications prior to February 3, 2009 which gave the tenants insufficient time to speak with neighbors or research the project. • The project applicant is a former member of the Planning Commission and had significant ex-pane communication with the Commission prior to project approval. Proposed Project • There is no substantial evidence to support the required Variance findings because the variances will be detrimental and injurious to adjacent properties and residents; the strict application of the zoning regulations would not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships; and the granting of a variance would be contrary to the general purpose and intent of the zoning regulations. • There are inadequate provisions for site access, especially during construction. • The variances granted for additional height, building volume, and fourth story are inconsistent with concerns regarding density and views. • The variance granted for the rear alley setback will create congestion in the alley. • The historic house will be fundamentally altered by the project. • The project does not comply with-the City's prohibition of non-TORCH conversions. • The Planning Commission Current Case List (February 25, 2009) inaccurately describes the project as "replace historic building with 3-unit condominium" when the project appears to be a "condo conversion" since the project connects the historic house to part of the new condominium building. • There were discrepancies between the staff report and information presented by the applicant. CEQA Review • The categorical exemptions do not apply. Environmental review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act because the project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource; there is a potentially significant cumulative impact if other lots with historic single-family dwellings are given multiple variances from zoning regulations; there are unusual circumstances, including historic resources. • No CEQA review was done to address hazardous materials in both buildings on site. The City Council, in its de novo review of these appeals, must determine whether the proposed project meets the findings required for a Variance and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map identified in SMMC Sections 9.04.20.10.050 and 9.20.14.030, respectively and as provided in Attachment B. The City Council may uphold the appeals or uphold -6- the decision of the Planning Commission, in whole or in part, based upon these findings. Appeal Analysis Based on the full record to date, including testimony and documentary evidence presented at Planning Commission public hearing and review of the appeal statements, there is ample evidence to approve the Variance and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map applications. As detailed more fully below and in the February 18, 2009 Planning Commission staff report, staff continues to recommend approval of both applications. The following discussion describes the proposed project, addresses the appellants' key arguments, and also summarizes the basis for staff's determination. General Description of Site & Proposed Project The property at 1012 Second Street is located on the west side of Second Street just south of Washington Avenue. The neighborhood is primarily characterized by two-, three-, and four-story multi-family development. A 3 '/-story, approximately 38'-0" tall apartment building is located immediately north of the site; a 4-story, approximately 45'- 0" tall condominium building is located immediately to the south. A 5-story, 50'-0" tall multi-family condominium building is located immediately west of the subject property across 1st Court alley. Additional context photos area provided in Attachment J: Zoning District: R-3 District Land Use Element: High Density Housing Parcel Area (SF): 7,511 SF Parcel Dimensions: 50' x 150.2' Existing On-Site One City Landmark Improvements designated single-family (Year Built): residence (circa 1898-1902); one four-unit apartment building (1924). Rent Control No rental history established Status/Remaining for vacant single-family tenants on-site: residence; four rent-controlled units in rear building currently occupied. Adjacent Zoning R-3 District & R-4 District; Districts & Land Uses: multi-family residential. -7- The existing Turn-of-the-Century Victorian Cottage is currently situated on site approximately 25'-0" from the front property line; 5'-0" from the north side property line; and 8'-0" from the south side property line. The applicant proposes to relocate the residence 5'-0" closer to the front property line. After relocation the building would comply with the required 20'-0" front yard setback, 8' minimum south side yard setback, and would retairi the building's non-conforming 5'-0" north side yard setback. After -8- Site location map: 1012 Second Street relocation, the Turn-of-the-Century Victorian Cottage will be restored and rehabilitated according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 1012 Second Street Shown in Context (left); C The design for the proposed. new construction consists of a four-story (43'-8") structure. Unit. 1 is comprised of the 886 SF historic cottage plus a 957 SF addition with an enclosed breezeway connecting the cottage to a portion of the first story of the new structure (1,843 SF total); unit 2 is located on the 1st and 2nd stories (split level); unit 3 is located exclusively on the 3rd story; and unit 4 is located exclusively on the 4th story. A subterranean garage with eight parking spaces is proposed beneath the new construction with vehicular access provided from 1st Court alley. -9- Renderings of Proposed Project 1012 Second Street The proposed four (4) unit condominium project is subject to the regulations and standards as set forth in Article 9 of the Municipal Code: Staff has completed a review of the proposed four-unit condominium project for compliance with the Medium Density Multiple Residential (R-3) District development standards, and finds that the applicant's proposal, with the exception of the seven modifications to development standards requested in conjunction with the Variance application and presented in greater detail below, generally conforms to the applicable zoning and design standards. The project is subject to design review by the Landmarks Commission through review of a Certificate of Appropriateness application. Variance Procedure for Preservation Projects The applicant has requested that a Variance be granted to allow for afour-unit condominium project to be constructed utilizing seven modifications to development standards. This Variance procedure was established to allow applicants to request modifications to development standards when a proposed project includes retention and preservation of a formally designated Landmark structure, provided that nine provisions are met. These provisions were designed to ensure that a proposed project, with requested modifications, is consistent with key factors that help to retain neighborhood compatibility such as: maximum unit density, maximum height and number of stories permitted by the Land Use Element, provision of private open space, and provision of unexcavated yard area. This Variance process also requires that projects are proposed in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties in order to ensure that the important historic character' of the resource is preserved. The Variance applicability requirements [SMMC Section 9.04.020.10.030 (m)] and Findings [9.04.20.10.050] are contained in Attachment G. The Variance procedure for preservation projects was established in 2006 by City Council adoption of an ordinance in conjunction with the Planning Commission's approval of a four-unit condominium project that also included retention and -10- preservation of a designated Landmark single-family dwelling, demolition of a detached dwelling unit and accessory structures and construction of three new units on the rear half of the parcel. Allowing modifications to development standards is consistent with the Landmarks Commission's articulated support for creating tangible incentives for projects that involve preservation of a designated historic resource, and was established, "rn part, as an incentive to off-set the added project design challenges and loss of typical, by-right development potential associated with retaining and preserving an existing Landmark structure. Allowing these modifications through a Variance was particularly appropriate since the purpose of a Variance is in part to place the applicant in substantial parity with other property owners in the district, in recognition of the special circumstances applicable to the property. The required retention of the landmark cottage constitutes special circumstance. By allowing applicants to request certain modifications to development standards for projects- that retain designated resources, some of the key impediments to creating innovative designs that balance new development with. preservation goals can be eliminated. This Variance procedure also balances the need to evaluate such requests for modifications on a case-by-case basis in order to ensure that. proposed projects are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and appropriate for the site. In contrast to the appellants' claim, the granting of a Variance for the project would not be contrary to the general purpose and intent of zoning regulations, since the Variance procedure was specifically established and codified as a way to allow for review of proposed modifications to the objective development standards and requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance when "practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or results inconsistent with the general purpose of the [Zoning Ordinance] would occur from its strict literal interpretation and enforcement" (SMMC 9.04.20.10.010 Variances, Purpose). -11- Analysis of Requested Modifications to Development Standards (Variances) Staff evaluated the proposed project design and each of the requested modifications to development standards in light of the design parameters outlined in SMMC Section 9.04.020.10.030 (m) and the required Variance findings. In this review, staff evaluated the appropriateness of each of the requested modifications to ensure that the project would not impair the integrity and character of the surrounding district, would not be materially detrimental or injurious to adjacent properties or the surrounding district, and would be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Staff also reviewed the project for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to ensure that the character of the existing designated resource would not be negatively impacted by the proposed project. For the purposes of this discussion, a comparative analysis of development potential with and without retention of the existing Landmark residence measured in maximum allowable square footage is useful to describe the proposed project and to put requested modifications into perspective. The applicant's project, with requested modifications to development standards, does not exceed the amount of square footage that could be built on site, approximately 9,610 square feet, if the parcel was vacant. Retention of the Landmark building along with a project that complies with all development standards would result in a maximum of only approximately 7,384 square feet on site (a loss of 2;226 square feet). The applicant proposes a project that involves restoration and rehabilitation of an existing designated City Landmark and new construction of three condominium units on the rear of the parcel. One appellant asserts that there is no substantial evidence to support the Variance findings for this project because the strict application of the zoning regulations would not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, not including economic difficulties or economic hardships. However, staff's analysis and the Planning Commission's approval of the proposed project is consistent with the City -12- Council's October 3, 2006 policy direction and associated adoption of a Text Amendment which recognized the practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships associated with preservation and protection of a designated historic resource and the loss of typical development opportunity provided by the objective development standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant's proposal, with requested modifications, would result in a total of 8,421 square feet on site, which also includes the existing 886 square foot Landmark Cottage. Therefore, through the requested modifications to development standards such as building height, building volume, setbacks, and unexcavated yard requirements described more fully below, the applicant. is able to recover 53% of the approximately 2,226 square feet that are lost as result of retaining the Landmark residence on site and preserving it in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (approximately 1,189 square feet). The project design incorporates seven requested modifications to objective development standards contained in the Municipal Code. Each of these modifications was evaluated both individually and cumulatively in the context of the overall project design and its surrounding environment. Proposed modifications are summarized below and are also discussed in greater detail in Attachment E: 4tequested'Nfpc~r~oation ~. Zoning~Ord'inarice Requitement ~ ,. .- Proposed ~. u,:. ....~, ~.. M-.~. Building Height 40' maximum ' 43'-8" 50 er Land Use Element Number of Stories 3 plus mezzanine maximum 4 4 er Land Use Element P~arcei Coverage Above 3 Story 4t6 Story not permitted 53% for 41h story Building Volume Above Approx. 5,575 cubic feet permitted 11,986 cubic feet above 35' to a 35 Feet above 35' to a maximum of 40' maximum of 43'-8" Rear Yard Setback Minimum 4' from rear property line 1'-6" from rear property line for for balconies and stairwells balconies and re uired exit stairs Side Yard Setback 2' average setback at each story in addition to minimum required 8' portions of the additional 2' average side and setback setback not provided at each story -13- Minimum 4' wide area of Area of subterranean garage Unexcavated Side Yard unexcavated side yard along entire excavated between both side len th of one side of parcel property lines With respect to the overall project design incorporating the above-requested modifications, the siting, scale, proportions, and massing of the new construction have been designed to be compatible with the existing Landmark building and with the surrounding neighborhood. The site is adjacent to multi-story buildings in all directions and is therefore generally consistent with the scale of surrounding properties: the adjacent condominium building to the south is 4-stories, approximately 45' in height, and 13,600 square feet; the adjacent apartment building to the north, where one of the appellants lives, is 3 '/ stories, approximately 38' in height, and 15,600 square feet; and the adjacent condominium building directly across the alley is five stories, 50'-0" in height and 38,800 square feet. In addition, the project site is directly adjacent to the R-4 Zoning District across 1St Court alley where five stories and 50'-0" are permitted. In contrast to the appellants' claims, the proposed 3'-8" increase in building height, additional story at the rear, and building volume above 35'-0", and 8,421 square feet of total floor area on site (including the 886 SF historic Cottage) will not be materially detrimental or injurious to the property, adjacent properties, or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located. `5Q' 9 ct12 and sfreet Streetscape View of 1012 Second Street (left); Five-Story Building Behind Subject Property (right) -14- In evaluating each of the seven requested modifications to development standards, staff analyzed the project in light of the approximate height and square footage of surrounding properties; compared the proposed project with a typical by-right development scenario consisting of a 3-story plus-mezzanine, 40'-0" tall building; evaluated the overall character of the streetscape in the surrounding neighborhood; and assessed the overall consistency and quality of the design and architectural concept. As shown in the schematic Redistribution Diagram on page 16, with the requested modifications to development standards, an amount less than the maximum theoretical amount of floor area and building volume/mass permitted by-right in the R-3 District has been redistributed from areas surrounding the Landmark Victorian Cottage to the rear of the parcel in order to protect the integrity of the historic resource and to comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. In addition, the applicant has proposed a 15'-0"separation between the Cottage and the new, multi- story construction and has not proposed asecond-story addition over or attached to the Cottage. A proposed second story addition over or attached to the Victorian Cottage would negatively impact the historic character of the structure and would therefore not comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and thus create a significant CEQA impact to an historic resource. -15- Existing Conditions (below left); Rendering of Proposed Project Shown in Context (right) Redistribution of a Portion of Floor Area Permitted for New Construction to Rear of Parcel in Order to Protect Historic Resource. In contrast to the appellants' claims, due to the special circumstances involved with the retention. and preservation of the Landmark structure on site, the additional 3'-8" of height and additional story requested will not be materially detrimental or injurious to surrounding properties when analyzed in the context of the typical, by-right development of a maximum 6-unit, 3-story plus-mezzanine, 40'-0" .tall building for the following reasons: the proposed project incorporates less square footage than would be permitted if the applicant proposed multi-story construction immediately surrounding and above the historic Cottage; and the proposed project retains a significant amount of undeveloped air space surrounding the Cottage that serves to balance the overall perceived scale and massing of the new construction on site and limit potential shade impacts proposed in conjunction with the requested modifications to development standards such as the 3'-8" increase in height, additional building volume above 35'-0" and modification to the required additional two-foot average side yard setback. Rendering of proposed project (left); rendering of project shown in context (right) -16- The general streetscape along Second Street between California and Washington Avenues primarily consists of an eclectic mix of two- to four-story, post-WW-II multi- family buildings with little building articulation and limited front, side, and rear yard setbacks, compared to today's development standards. According to a review of building permits, of the nineteen parcels on the block, only four parcels developed before WW-II remain (including the subject property); fifteen of the nineteen parcels were developed after WW-II. Building heights in the neighborhood range from one- to five-stories and approximately twenty to fifty feet in height. As indicated in the renderings above, the project with requested modifications to development standards such as an additional 3'-8" in height and fourth floor, will not impair the integrity and character of the district since it will preserve a visually prominent structure that represents the neighborhood's historic streetscape and incorporates new construction that is consistent with the predominate scale of surrounding properties. streetscape photos are provided in Attachments J & K and an aerial view of building footprints is provided in Attachment E. In contrast to one appellant's assertion, the proposed project does incorporate the required 8'-0" minimum side yard setbacks for the proposed new construction and only retains a legal, non-conforming 5'-0" north side yard setback for the approximately 28- foot length of the historic Cottage. The applicant has, however, requested a modification to requirements to provide atwo- foot average additional side yard setback at each floor - a requirement in excess of the minimum 8'-0" side yard setback. The general purpose of this requirement is to encourage project designs that incorporate sufficient building articulation and visual interest on the two side elevations of new construction. An estimate analysis of the proposed project shows that the applicant has provided additional north and south side yard setbacks at each floor (measured in square footage) in excess of the required 8'-0" minimum requirement. However, the two-foot average additional side yard setback -17- requirement has not been fully met on certain floors. As a whole, the proposed project design and requested Variance meets the intent of the requirement through the incorporation of at grade patios and open space,. the provision of recessed and articulated areas on both elevations, and the provision of more than the required two- foot additional average on some floors. In addition, more than the required additional two-foot average side yard setback is provided on the third and fourth floors of the north and elevation and on the second through fourth floors of the south elevation in order to reduce the perceived massing of the requested additional 3'-8" of building height and building volume above 35'-0". The applicant proposes a 1'-6" setback from the rear property line for second, third and fourth floor balconies and the required rear exit stairs; a minimum 4'-0" rear yard setback from property line is currently required for balconies and stairwells. The existing apartment building on the rear of the parcel currently has no rear yard setback. The applicant has revised the project design so that the building floor area complies with the current 5'-0" rear yard setback requirement; the requested modification only pertains to upper floor balconies and a required exit stairwell. As shown in project elevations and renderings, the proposed modification to the 4'-0" rear yard setback for balconies and stairwells would not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the general vicinity because these projections minimally extend into the rear yard setback and will not, as the appellants assert, create more congestion in the standard 20'-0" alley since the upper floor balconies and stairwell will not impede the alley traffic flow. Finally, with respect to the requested modification to unexcavated yard requirements, in order to avoid excavating under the Landmark Cottage for the subterranean garage, the project design does not incorporate a 4'-0" wide strip of unexcavated yard area along the entire length of one property line (except as needed to provide access to subterranean parking). The general purpose of this requirement is to encourage the provision of more permeable surfaces and mature landscaping. Due to the special -18- circumstances associated with the retention of the Landmark structure on site and the desire to avoid excavating underneath the structure, the request to fully excavate from north property line to south property line for the portion of the subterranean garage is appropriate (approximately 82 feet of the lot measured from the rear property line to the east end of the garage). Further, the proposed landscaping plan will provide sufficient plant material screening along both property lines and will be further enhanced by the addition of more landscaping, per the conditions of approval provided in Attachment B. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties As with all requests for alterations to designated City Landmarks, proposed work must be undertaken in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Properties, contained in Attachment H. The proposed work includes rehabilitation as the primary treatment associated with the proposed project. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards define rehabilitation as, "The act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values". The proposed project retains and rehabilitates the Landmark Cottage located at the street in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation as reviewed and documented in a memo prepared by the City's historic consultant, contained in Attachment I. This will serve to help preserve a part of the neighborhood's character and also provide a visual representation of the early history and development of Santa Monica's original Town Site. Treatment of Turn-of--the-Century Victorian Cottage The existing 886 square foot Turn-of-the-Century Victorian Cottage is proposed for on- site relocation 5'-0" closer to the front and south property lines to allow sufficient parcel area for new construction on the rear of the parcel, and to align the house with adjacent -19- .buildings set back 20'-0" from the front property lines, thus providing an enhanced view of the Landmark residence from the public right-of-way. The proposed relocation was evaluated carefully to ensure that the proposal would be consistent with the original character and use. of the property. As proposed, the relocation would retain most of the seven qualities of integrity, including design, workmanship, setting, feeling, association, and materials. Even after being relocated, the property would still retain its historic character sufficiently enough to reflect its architectural importance for which it was designated a City of Santa Monica Landmark. Moreover, the retention and preservation of the resource will allow it to convey its historic identity, association, and feeling of residential life in the Town of Santa Monica at the turn of the 20th Century. In accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, the applicant proposes to retain all exterior character-defining features, materials, and finishes of the Landmark Cottage. Examples of such features include its hipped roof form, porch configuration, siding, and unique late Victorian architectural design elements represented by its narrow, elongated windows arranged both singly and in groups on the primary and secondary elevations. The applicant proposes to construct a new building foundation for the relocated residence, utilizing concrete to match existing materials. In accordance with Standards, the applicant also proposes to remove anon-original addition at the rear of the residence in order to restore the original mass-planned floor plan of the original construction. The proposed enclosed breezeway will be constructed at the rear of the structure and will be sufficiently recessed from the side elevations of the original building so that it will be clearly distinguished as a new feature. An update to the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems will also be implemented in conjunction with the house relocation. After on-site relocation, the applicant proposes to repaint the exterior of the Cottage using a color palette that is consistent with typical color selections for 19th and early 20th Century American residences. At this time, no other exterior modifications are proposed. -20- Design Compatibility Analysis: New Construction In accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, the proposed new construction expresses awell-defined, modern design and form that is compatible with, yet differentiated from, the historic Turn-of-the-Century Victorian Cottage on site. The modern design of the new residential construction is differentiated from the existing historic fabric, and is also compatible with the historic materials, scale and proportion of the historic Cottage and the surrounding multi-family neighborhood. Specifically, the siting of the new construction is proposed with a 15'-0" separation from the relocated historic Cottage with a glass breezeway .connecting the two structures: This separation allows the Landmark to be highlighted as a significant element on site. The incorporation of a significant amount of glazing on primary and secondary elevations - in particular at the fourth floor -complements the architectural style of the new construction and also reduces the visual presence of the new construction in its location behind the Landmark Cottage. The overall massing of the new construction incorporates significant stepbacks and articulation on the primary and secondary elevations in order to highlight the existing Landmark Cottage rather than visually compete with it. Moreover, this design is sensitive to the adjacent neighbors by providing additional setbacks at each side of the proposed fourth floor, and appropriate stepbacks at various heights with the tallest portion of the new construction at the rear half of the lot and will not obscure or detrimentally alter any character-defining features of the existing Landmark Cottage. Finally, in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, the proposed new construction has been designed in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment will be unimpaired. -21- The proposed landscape plan for the front half of the parcel relates to the historic context of the Landmark Cottage and references historically important elements of a typical, turn-of-the-century California bungalow garden. These features include the abundance and variety of plant materials, and the configuration of the front walk with curved edges. In contrast, the landscaping plan in the rear half of the site features a much more linear design for both hardscape and arrangement of plantings in order to complement the modern form of the new construction behind the Landmark Cottage. The final project design is subject to the review and approval of the Landmarks Commission through a Certificate of Appropriateness application Vesting Tentative Parcel Map The proposed four-unit subdivision is consistent with the City's General Plan in that a four (4) unit condominium subdivision is proposed in an area where High Density Residential uses are encouraged, and the proposed density of development is below the limitations established for this land use district. The proposed design of the units will be consistent with the City's General Plan by not exceeding the development standards for High Density Housing Residential uses consisting of four (4) stories or 50 feet in height. In addition, the proposal will conform to the density limitations of the R-3 District development standards, where a maximum of six (6) dwelling units could be permitted on-site. The subject property is relatively flat and is located within a neighborhood where the necessary public. infrastructure and improvements are currently in-place. Developments of similar use, density and design are prevalent in the surrounding R-3 and R-4 Districts comprised primarily of multi-family residential uses. Pedestrian access to the site is provided from Second Street and vehicular access to the site is by means of an adjacent rear alley (1st Court) which is a standard 20'-0" width. The subject property is not constrained by any public use or access easements. In general, the proposed airspace subdivision will not compromise the public's health and general welfare. -22- The appellants assert that the applicant failed to comply with submittal requirements for Vesting Tentative Parcel Maps pursuant to SMMC Section 9.20.10.040. Specifically, two of the appellants state that a conversion report, a tenants' notice of intent to convert, and a conditional use permit application were not filed by the applicant. The appellants also assert that the proposed project violates the City's prohibition on non- TORCA conversion, set. forth in the City of Santa Monica Charter, Article XX, Section 2018 (a) & (b), which specifies the following: • "No multifamily residential conversion, whether by condominium, stock cooperative, community apartment, cooperative apartment, or other means, shall be approved unless it is approved in accordance with this Article." • "The General Plan of the City shall at all times contain a provision that the Tenant Ownership Rights Charter Amendment shall be the only procedure by which a multifamily conversion may be approved." The proposed project does not constitute a conversion subject to TORCA Section 2018 since the four (4) units at the rear of the property are being demolished, and the landmark cottage has no rental history. More specifically, documents from the City's Rent Control Board Office indicate that there are only four (4) registered rent-controlled units at 1012 Second Street located in the non-historic apartment building at the rear of the parcel. The applicant is proposing to demolish this four-unit, registered rent- controlled building after utilizing the Ellis Act to withdraw from the rental business. The City's Rent Control Board Office has confirmed that no rental history has been established for the Landmark Cottage on the. site since the beginning of City rent control regulations in 1978 and it is therefore considered anon-rental unit. Due to this lack of rental history, the landmark cottage has obtained an administrative fee waiver from the Board. The submittal of a conversion report, tenants' notice of intent to convert, and conditional use permit is not required as the proposed project does not constitute a conversion. The Vesting Tentative Parcel Map is included with this report as Attachment J. -23- Discussion Regarding Appellants' Procedural Challenges The appellants assert that there was a violation of notice requirements due to lack of site posting on the property and lack of notification of the February 18, 2009 Planning Commission public hearing prior to February 3, 2009. However, pursuant to the procedures established by the Zoning Ordinance for notice of public hearirigs regarding Variances and Tentative Maps, at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, a notice shall published in a local newspaper; and a notice shall be mailed to all properly owners and tenants, including businesses, corporations or other public or private entities, within three hundred (300) feet of the property which is .the subject of the application. Staff has confirmed that all legal requirements for noticing the February 18, 2009 Planning Commission public hearing were met. Posting of the site with a notice of public hearing sign was not required. Furthermore, the applicant's architect hosted a community meeting which staff attended on February 3, 2009 to discuss the proposal. This meeting provided the neighborhood with additional time to gather information about the project prior to the City's implementation of its legal noticing requirements described above. Finally, one of the appellants asserts that "the project applicant is a former member of the Planning Commission and had significant ex-parte communication with the Commission prior to project approval." However, the appellant misunderstands the limitations on ex-parte communications in that they are not prohibited;- these communications simply must be fully disclosed prior to the commencement of the public hearing for the matter.. These ex-parte communications between the project architect and members of the Planning Commission were properly disclosed; moreover, the project architect is not a former member of the Planning Commission as the appellant asserts, rather the project architect is a former member of the City's Architectural Review Board. Finally, even if the project architect were a former member of the Planning Commission, communication with current Commission members would not be -24- restricted, provided that the substance of such conversations were to be properly disclosed as outlined above. General Plan Consistency The proposed project is consistent with a variety of goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Land Use Element and Historic Preservation Element of the City of Santa Monica's General Plan. Land Use Element Policy 1.10.1 encourages the development of new housing in all residential neighborhoods, while still protecting the character and scale of neighborhoods. The proposed project is consistent with this policy in that new residential units are proposed along with the retention of an existing historic resource that contributes to the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Land Use Element Policy 3.1.3 encourages the retention of historic and architecturally significant resources and also states that the design of new buildings should respect the character of nearby historic resources. The project is consistent with Policy 3.1.3 in that retention and preservation of the existing Turn-of-the-Century Victorian Cottage is proposed and the new construction on site is designed to be compatible with the historic resource on site while not duplicating its design. Goal 3 of the Historic Preservation Element calls foran increase in public awareness of the history of Santa Monica and historic preservation in the City. The proposed project supports this policy and goal in that the historically significant Turn-of-the-Century Victorian Cottage will be retained on site and will continue to exemplify an important element of the early years of Santa Monica's residential development. Finally, Goal 5 of the Historic Preservation Element encourages the promotion of preservation of historic and cultural resources through incentives and technical assistance. The project utilizes a process specifically designed to accommodate -25- requested modifications to development standards for projects that involve the retention and preservation of designated Landmarks and Contributing Structures to an adopted Historic District. Environmental Analysis The request to create a four-unit subdivision consisting of the retention and rehabilitation of a designated Landmark structure with construction of three new condominiums is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15303 (b), Class 3, and Section 15331, Class 31, of the State CEQA Guidelines. Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to structures designed for not more than six dwelling units. The proposed project consists of a request to develop a four-unit condominium in an urbanized environment. Class 31 consists of projects limited to maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation conservation, or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for. the Treatment of Historic Properties (1995), Weeks and Grimmer. The Landmarks Commission designated the subject Turn-of-the-Century Victorian Cottage as a City Landmark in September 2005 in conjunction with their review of a proposed demolition permit for all structures on the parcel at 1012 Second Street. The apartment building located at the rear of the parcel proposed for demolition is not a historic resource and was specifically excluded from the Landmark Designation. In contrast to the appellants' assertions, and as detailed in this report at pages 19-22, the proposed project preserves and rehabilitates the designated Landmark on site and proposes new construction on .the parcel in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The City's historic -26- consultant has prepared a memo, contained in Attachment I, verifying the project's consistency with these standards. Accordingly, the proposed rehabilitation project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic resource and therefore qualifies for a Class 31 Categorical Exemption. The appellants assert that a Categorical Exemption can not be used for the project because the presence of a historic resource on the property constitutes an "unusual circumstance" that will create a significant effect on the environment. However, as outlined above, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15331 specifically authorizes the Lead Agency to utilize a Class 31 Categorical Exemption for projects that involve the "maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation conservation, or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (1995), Weeks and Grimmer." Projects that have been determined by the Lead Agency to comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of the Historic Properties and to be Categorically Exempt pursuant to Class 31, necessarily involve a historic resource. Therefore, there is no merit to the appellants' assertion that a project that involves a historic resource should automatically be considered an "unusual circumstance" that renders the Lead Agency unable to determine that such a project is categorically exempt. Moreover, Section 15300.2(f) provides that a Categorical Exemption shall not be used for a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. As detailed herein, such is-not the case for this project. The appellants also claim that there is a potentially significant cumulative impact to other properties and residents if other lots with historic single-family dwellings in the neighborhood are given multiple variances from zoning regulations based on a precedent set by the granting of seven variances for this project. The appellants, however, have failed to identify what specific cumulative impacts would result from the proposed project. Furthermore, the fear of future actions that adecision-making body may take is speculation; all projects that involve the retention and preservation of a -27- designated historic structure and requested modifications to development standards are subject to discretionary review where each modification is evaluated on a case-by-case basis in light of property- and area-specific circumstances. Moreover, each of these projects will be subject to review under the City's Landmark Ordinance and must be undertaken in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Finally, one appellant claims that CEQA review is required because both buildings on site "... likely have a lot of asbestos, lead and. other hazardous materials in them which will be released when the front house is moved and the apartment building is torn down." The potential presence of asbestos, lead and hazardous materials is not considered an unusual circumstance for the purposes of determining whether additional CEQA review is required. Even though there is a potential for the presence of these substances with any building of a certain age, the State CEQA Guidelines still identify over 30 typeslclasses of projects that have been determined by the State Secretary for Natural Resources to not have a significant effect on the environment, and are therefore declared to be categorically exempt. These types/classes of exemptions include activities such as the alteration, repair, or demolition or existing public and private facilities (Class 1); and the rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards (Class 31). Furthermore, the State of California has chosen to directly regulate asbestos removal through its local Air Quality Management Districts and has established notification and work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities. More specifically, State law requires that a copy of the asbestos demolition notification form be provided to the City's Building and Safety Division prior to the issuance of permits for the proposed project. Finally, as reflected by this well-established regulatory program, the potential presence of asbestos, lead, and hazardous materials in older buildings demonstrates that this is not an unusual circumstance that would negate application of this exemption, but is instead a common and typical concern with older buildings. -28- Conclusion Based on the whole of the record, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeals and approve Variance application 08VAR-022 and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 08TM-011 based on the findings and conditions set forth in Attachment B. Alternatives As an alternative to the staff recommendation, the City Council may consider the following with respect to the pending appeals if supported by the full evidentiary record: 1. Deny the appeals based on revised findings and/or conditions. 2. Uphold the appeals; in whole or in part, based on revised findings. 3. Remand the application to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Public Outreach Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property located within a (300 foot) radius of the project and published in the Santa Monica Daily Press at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. The project architect, Howard Laks, .hosted a neighborhood meeting on February 3, 2009. An overview of the project was presented by the architect and staff was present to provide information regarding specific provisions in the Zoning Ordinance and the Planning Commission and Landmarks Commission public hearing process. There were seven interested parties in attendance. Questions and comments raised include the following: • Concern was expressed regarding the additional building height requested. • Concern was expressed regarding the requested rear yard setback modification since 1st Court alley was described as being narrow, dangerous, and heavily traveled. • Residents in the apartment building to the north stated that a narrow walkway is located near their south property line; they asked if the subterranean garage entrance needs to be located adjacent to their building and inquired whether it could be relocated to the south side of the building. • Residents in the apartment building to the north expressed concern about the -29- loss of sunlight and also stated that the new construction will exacerbate echoing noise between the buildings. • Questions. were raised about the construction schedule and about the procedure for lead and asbestos abatement for the historic cottage. Financial Impacts & Budget Actions The project contains four units, and each unit is subject to a Parks and Recreation Facilities Tax of $200 and a Condominium Tax of $1,000. The project is required to comply with the City's Affordable Housing Production Program as specified in SMMC Section 9.56 which may be satisfied by providing affordable housing on or off-site, or by payment of an in-lieu fee. The applicant has opted to pay the fee, estimated to be $232,756.15. The project is required to comply with the City's Child Care Linkage Fee as specified in SMMC Section 9.72. This requirement may be satisfied by paying a fee in the amount of $444.00. Once construction of the project is complete, staff will include these fees in the proposed budget for the Council's review and approval. Prepared by: Roxanne Tanemori, AICP, Senior Planner Tony Kim, Senior Planner -30- Approved: Forwarded to Council: