Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
sr-110910-6a
~r Ci[y of Santa Monica City Council Report City Council Meeting: November 9, 2010 Agenda Item: (oA To: Mayor and City Council From: Eileen P. Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of Development Review Permit (10DR-001) to construct a new three and four-story, twenty-unit condominium complex at 301 Ocean Avenue and Variance (10VAR008) to allow the second and third floor parcel coverages to exceed the limits set forth by the Municipal Code. Recommended Action Staff recommends the City Council deny appeal 10APP005 and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Development Review 10- 001 and Variance 10-008 for the proposed condominium project located at 301 Ocean Avenue based on the draft findings and conditions contained in this staff report. Executive Summary The appellant, Citizens in San Vicente -Ocean Avenue Neighborhood, requests that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's approval of a new 20-unit condominium complex within three separate buildings oriented around a central garden courtyard at 301 Ocean Avenue. Forty three parking spaces would be provided within two levels of subterranean parking, and an existing 47-unit vacant apartment complex would be demolished to accommodate the proposed project. On April 20, 2010, the applicant, 301 Ocean Development LLC, filed a Development Review Permit to allow for the construction of the new structures as the overall square footage of the project is in excess of 25,000 square feet. Approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map was also required for the subdivision of the property into twenty air- space units. In addition, the applicant requested a Variance to allow the second and third floor parcel coverages to exceed the limits set forth by the Municipal Code. On August 18, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved the subject applications. The appeal was filed by the appellant on September 1, 2010, to protest the Development Review Permit and Variance approvals including the accompanying Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Tentative Tract map was not appealed as that filing period had lapsed. In consideration of the full record to date, it is recommended that the Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of a new 20-unit condominium project at 301 Ocean Avenue. This report highlights the Planning Commission's action, 1 the points of the appeal, and staff's analysis of the appeal. The recommendation on this matter does not have any budgetary or fiscal impact. Background The existing 47-unit apartment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue was built in stages from 1952-1958. In July 2009, the City Council denied an application to designate the property as a City Landmark. In November 2007, the applicant introduced a proposal for a new 26-unit condominium development at the subject location. The four-story building was designed in a contemporary style with a curved fagade along the San Vicente Boulevard frontage mirroring the curve of the street and property line. The design utilized expansive glazing with the entire mass of the building and every unit exposed to the street. No courtyard was proposed, and no openings from either Ocean Avenue or San Vicente Boulevard into the interior of the property were provided. __ _. _. F Y *f '.u c~uu%w.. ~t~i~g~ s ,r ~ ~~ ~~ t 4 ...E ~^}1~~~e 1 (-, °'~ '~~ x ~, ~ ~ F' ~ F ~: L.. aMI~ A community meeting was held regarding the originally proposed project on January 31, 2008. Members of the public attended the meeting to learn about various aspects of the project and provide input. Many of the meeting attendants expressed their concerns with the project's original design, its relationship to the surrounding neighborhood, the expansive massing. of the building, and the need for more building articulation. Most of the attendants expressed their displeasure at the height and overall massing of the 2 originally proposed building as well as the lack of the project's residential appearance. In response to the comments and concerns, the applicant reduced the project density to 20 units and redesigned the project to provide increased articulation, reduce the mass and scale and make it more compatible with the residential environment of the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission approved the revised project on August 18, 2010 through the approvals of a Development Review Permit, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and parcel coverage Variance and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration. On September 1, 2010, the Planning Commission's approvals were appealed by the Citizens in San Vicente -Ocean Avenue Neighborhood. The subject appeal applies towards the Development- Review Permit and Variance approvals including the accompanying Mitigated Negative Declaration, as the appeal period for-the Vesting Tentative Tract map had lapsed at the time the appeal was filed and is, therefore, not a part of this appeal. Discussion Project Description The project site is located on a curved triangular shaped property on the southeast corner of Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. The relatively flat parcel is within the R4 High Density Multiple Family Residential District and surrounded by a variety of residential uses. Athree-story condominium building is located- adjacent to the south of the subject property. Atwo-story apartment building that fronts San Vicente Boulevard. and atwo-story condominium building that fronts Georgina Avenue are located across First Court alley to the east. Across San Vicente Boulevard to the north is a 17-story condominium tower, and Palisades Park is located across Ocean Avenue to the west. The subject site is currently developed with a vacant 47-unit apartment complex comprised of two buildings oriented around a courtyard with a pool and landscaping. 3 The proposed 20-unit condominium project includes five designated affordable housing units for qualified moderate-income households. Forty three parking spaces will be provided within two levels of subterranean parking accessed from the rear First Court alley, and the existing 47-unit vacant apartment complex would be demolished to accommodate the proposed project. The revised project is designed in a Spanish Revival style with gardens, reflecting pools, white-washed plaster, and the work. Revised project rendering - 301 Ocean Ave The proposed project would consist of three separate buildings located around a central courtyard that would be accessible from both Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. Buildings `A' and 'B' would be four stories in height while building `C', located adjacent to San Vicente Boulevard, would be three stories in height. 4 ___ ( t R"-ZfXtE . {\ 1` ~~A'5~~~~ r ~O _ L ~ ~ ~yi (rte ~ .... .s.•~a "' a~aau~ Y 1 Y l nw 1~4M y, . ~ .~.. ~ .. ... '~. 5t V i y i i it , ~ , Y y~~+ ~m f ~ . :- '~' ; R.S-ZCM1E-' ~ ~ i F. M1 Qi ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ '-~ { i i ff ~ ~ 3. t ~ E ~~~ ~ r"". \ ~ Y~,.. o-6 f ` t `ti t t ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~.m .~ -_- - _-_-_ -_ _ pq~ AVElVk}~ Revised project site plan - 301 Ocean Ave Development Review Permit A Development Review Permit is required for a development with an overall square footage in excess of 25,000 square feet in the R4 District, and the proposed project measures approximately 56,194 square feet in area. An accompanying Vesting Tentative Tract Map application was determined complete on April 20, 2010, and approved by the Planning Commission on August 18, 2010. Therefore, the proposed project is not subject to the recently adopted LUCE. The proposed project is designed to be compatible with the surrounding area and neighborhood which primarily consists of multi-story, multi-family residential buildings ranging between two to 17 stories in height and with an eclectic mix of architectural styles. The separation of the three buildings reduces the scale of the project, and the 5 openings into the courtyard along with the additional upper level building stepbacks along Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard provide for an articulated project compatible with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood. While the development standards for the R4 district allow for four-story buildings, building `C' located along San Vicente Boulevard consists of three stories. The reduced fourth story footprint and lower building height along San Vicente Boulevard allows for a project that transitions in height between the adjacent residential buildings. Garden terraces and open balconies along both street frontages create a pedestrian environment that relate harmoniously to the surrounding residential neighborhood, and landscaping throughout the project also contributes to the residential scale of the surrounding area. While a courtyard is not required by the development standards of the R4 district, the applicant is providing a courtyard that measures approximately 7,447 square feet in overall area and provides pedestrian oriented amenities including a reflecting pool, benches, and planters with extensive landscaping. The design of the courtyard with access from both Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard provides visibility into the courtyard and the interior of the site from the street while relating to the open space of Palisades Park across Ocean Avenue to the west. In addition, the Spanish Revival style of the project utilizing white plaster and the work fits into the eclectic design styles of the surrounding residential buildings and reflects upon older Spanish courtyard homes found throughout the City. s Variance Request The applicant is also requesting a Variance to allow the second and third story parcel coverages to exceed the limits set forth by the Municipal Code. In return, the applicant is proposing to reduce the fourth story parcel coverage. The curved triangular shape of the subject property is unique compared to other standard rectilinear-shaped properties in the general area. The front of the property is located along Ocean Avenue while the large curved expanse along San Vicente Boulevard is considered a side of the property. The requirements for additional building articulation and stepbacks along the street necessitate the reallocation of parcel 7 Photograph of project model - 301 Ocean Ave coverage elsewhere on the property while maintaining the projects compatibility in mass and scale to adjacent existing residential buildings. Approval of the variance would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be located in that the additional parcel coverage on the second and third stories would result in reduced parcel coverage on the fourth floor creating a project that is more compatible in mass and scale with the surrounding buildings and uses. The neighborhood in which the subject project is located includes buildings ranging between two stories in height to multi-story high-rise towers. The decreased fourth floor footprint would allow the fourth floor to be setback further from the street, thereby reducing the visible mass and scale of the project. The inclusion of an expansive central courtyard accessible from both Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard would not be affected by the additional parcel coverage on the second and third stories. The courtyard and the upper level building stepbacks provide for an articulated project compatible with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood and allow for a project that appropriately transitions in height between the adjacent residential buildings. For these reason, strict adherence with the parcel coverage requirements would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, not including economic difficulties or economic hardships for the applicant as existing parcel constraints and the placement of adjacent uses would result in attempting to create a project compatible in mass and scale to existing two and three story buildings in the general area. The curved triangular shape of the parcel and large expanse of the side elevation along San Vicente Boulevard requires additional building articulation and stepbacks along the street, necessitating reallocation of parcel coverage elsewhere on the property. The strict application of the parcel coverage limits on the second and third floor would result in increased building mass on the fourth floor resulting. in a project design that is incompatible with the neighborhood in terms of mass and scale and would not adequately transition in height with the surrounding buildings. 8 Commission Action On August 18, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project, adopted the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approved the Development Review Permit, Variance, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map. While the Commissioners expressed varying opinions on the project's Spanish Revival architectural style, they believed that the project's massing, size, and placement were appropriate for the location of the project and compatible with the surrounding buildings. However, the Commission added a condition of approval requiring landscaping to be planted along the alley to provide a transition and buffer between the project and the adjacent buildings to the east. The Commission believed that granting approval of the Variance request for additional parcel coverage on the second and third stories would result in a decrease in the size and massing of the fourth story, thereby creating a more compatible project. The Planning Commission acknowledged that the surrounding neighborhood contains buildings of varying architectural styles. While some Commissioners indicated that the proposed Spanish Revival architectural style was appropriate for the site and compatible with the neighborhood, other Commissioners believed that the design was a missed opportunity given the project's gateway location and its surroundings. The Commission added several design-related conditions of approval for the Architectural Review Board to pay particular attention to the appropriateness of the project's 'design, especially along the San Vicente Boulevard and Ocean Avenue elevations. The. Planning Commission's Statement of Official Action is presented as Attachment B, and the August 18, 2010 project staff report and minutes are presented as Attachments C and D, respectively. Appeal Summary The appellant states that the proposed project is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, particularly regarding the proposed Spanish Revival architectural style. The appellant also states that the Variance to allow the additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors increases the mass of the project as viewed from the street. 9 Most of the appellants' objections to the project approvals concern perceived errors in the project's environmental analysis, particularly related to potential geologic, visual, historic resource, and socio-economic impacts. The appellants' complete appeal statement is contained in Attachment A. The City Council, in its de novo review of these appeals, must review the Mitigated Negative Declaration and determine whether the proposed project meets the findings required for a Development Review Permit and Variance identified in SMMC Sections 9.04.20.14.040 and 9.04.20.10.050, respectively and as provided in Attachment E. The City Council may uphold the appeals or uphold 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 the Planning Commission public hearing and review of the appeal statement, there is ample evidence to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Development Review Permit and Variance applications. As detailed more fully below and in the August 18, 2010 Planning Commission staff report, staff continues to recommend approval of both applications. The appellant contends that significant changes were made to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) subsequent to the MND 30-day public review period and that the MND should have been made available for a second review period. Only one public comment letter was received during the public review period which resulted. in clarification language being added to the MND and no changes to the conclusions in the document. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15073.5, a lead agency is required to recirculate a negative declaration when the document must be substantially revised after public notice of its availability has previously been given. A "substantial revision" is defined by CEQA as the identification of any new avoidable significant impacts or the determination that proposed mitigation measures will be ineffective or that new mitigation measures are necessary. Neither was the case in this 10 instance. The addition of new information which clarifies and amplifies upon the prior determination of the Negative Declaration does not require recirculation The appellant also claims that provisions to mitigate potential landslide hazards were not included in the MND. As determined in the Geology and Soils Section VIII (MND, pg. 36-39), the environmental analysis determined that due to the level surface of the site and its distance away for the bluff edge, the potential for landslides was low. The project applicant will also be required to prepare a detailed geotechnical report as part of the normal building permit process and to meet the geotechnical s#andards and requirements established in this report. In addition, the applicant has submitted the results of an independent geotechnical investigation conducted by Geotechnical Professionals Inc. (Response to Appeal Comments letter, September 8, 2010), included with Attachment F, that support the findings in the MND. There is no support for the appellant's claim by competent contrary evidence. The appellant states that the project is not compatible with and does not relate harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood, particularly regarding the proposed Spanish Revival architectural style, and that the project will have a significant impact on the environment based on its aesthetic impact. The surrounding neighborhood, primarily within the R4 District along Ocean Avenue, consists of various multi-story, multi-family residential buildings ranging between two to 17 stories in height with an eclectic 11 mix of architectural styles. Some of these structures do not provide any additional building setbacks, stepbacks, or articulation. The proposed four-story project is compatible in size and massing to these various multi-story, multi-family residential buildings in the area. The separation of the project into three buildings reduces the scale of the project, and the openings into the courtyard along with the additional upper level building stepbacks along Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard provide for an articulated project compatible with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood. In addition, SMMC Section 9.04.20.14.040 states that "the size of the project shall be deemed compatible with and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods provided the project is consistent with the height and density standards set forth in the Land Use Element of the General Plan." The subject project is consistent with these standards. While the Planning Commission is required to find that the project is compatible in terms of its location, size, massing, and placement on the site, there is no requirement that the project's architectural style be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The 12 architectural style of the project, including its design, colors and materials, is within the purview of the Architectural Review Board and not the Planning Commission. While some Commissioners indicated that the proposed Spanish Revival architectural style was appropriate for the site and compatible with the neighborhood, other Commissioners believed that the design was a missed opportunity given the project's gateway location and its surroundings. The Commission added several design-related conditions of approval for the Architectural Review Board to pay particular attention to the appropriateness of the project's design, especially along the San Vicente Boulevard and Ocean Avenue elevations. In addition, the Courts have recognized that the design review process itself serves to ensure that a project will not degrade the visual character or aesthetics of the general area. In Bowman v. City of Berkeley, a neighborhood group challenged a senior housing project which involved the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a four-story, 40-unit, mixed-use building. The Court concluded that "where a project must undergo design review under local law, that process itself can be found to mitigate purely aesthetic impacts to insignificance..." The subject property has undergone extensive design review by staff with input from the Planning Commission and will be thoroughly reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. The appellant also believes that the massing of the project, with the approval of the Variance for additional parcel coverage on the second arjd third stories, is incompatible with the neighborhood. However, the approval for the additional parcel coverage on the second and third stories will result in the reduction of parcel coverage on the fourth story. The reduced fourth floor footprint, lower building height along the street elevations, courtyard openings from both streets, and various building stepbacks and articulation reduces the massing of the project as viewed from the street and provides for a project that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The appellant contends that a full Environmental Impact Report of the potential impact to the subject property as a historical resource is required. Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 and its implementing Guidelines establish three analytical categories 13 for use in determining whether an object is an historical resource for purposes of CEQA: These have been labeled (1) mandatory historical resources, (2) presumptive historic resources, and (3) discretionary historical. resources. The subject property does not qualify as a historical resource in any of these categories. This property has not been listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. Consequently, based on these facts and the applicable standards, it should not be considered a mandatory historical resource. The property has also not been included in the City's local register of historical resources. The City Council specifically rejected an application to landmark the property. Additionally, it has not been identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(8) of the Public Resources Code. More specifically, the property at 301 Ocean Avenue was surveyed during Phase I of the City of Santa Monica's historic resource survey (1983-1986). During Phase I and Phase II of the survey, all buildings in the City were surveyed. During the Phase I survey, the 301 Ocean Avenue property was found not to be eligible as an individually eligible historic resource. The property was surveyed again during the 2001-2002 North of Montana Area Historic Resources .Inventory Update. During this update., the property was found not to be individually eligible for historic resource designation. Consequently, based on these facts and the applicable standards, this property should not be considered a presumptive historical resource. Based on an independent assessment and review of the extensive studies and analyses that have been prepared to date by qualified historic preservation experts and the applicable standards, this. property should not be considered a discretionary historical resource. See also Response to Comment, MND Appendix E. The appellant also contends that as a gateway to a "proposed" historic district, the project requires an Environmental Impact Report. The subject property is located adjacent to, but not within the boundaries, of the San Vicente Apartments potential historic district. The boundaries of the potential historic district extend along San Vicente Boulevard from 7th Street to the east and First Court alley to the west. In addition, the 14 City's 1983-1986 Phase I & II Historic Resources Survey and 2002 North of Montana Area Historic Resources Inventory Update identified that the subject property did not appear eligible as a contributor to the potential apartment district. Since this proposed project would be developed outside the potential historic district, it could not materially impair this potential historic district, particularly given that the existing development would not be considered a contributing building even if it were in the potential district. Based on these conclusions, the proposed project will not result in an impact to the adjacent potential historic district, and an EIR is not required. The appellant states that the proposed project will result in the loss of 47 affordable rental units and 90 rental residents and that the economic and social impacts of the proposed project require additional study. However, there is no evidence that the proposed project would require the construction of additional housing. The existing apartment building is currently vacant. Five affordable ownership housing units are provided as part of the proposed project, and the City has a long history of promoting and supporting the development of affordable housing throughout the City through various affordable housing programs. Finally, economic and social changes are not treated as significant effects on the environment. Alternatives As an alternative to the staff recommendation, the Council may consider the following with respect to the pending appeal if supported by the full evidentiary record: 1. Uphold the appeal of Developmenfi Review Permit (10DR-001), Variance (10VAR008), and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and deny the subject applications. 2. Articulate revised findings and/or conditions to Approve OR Deny the subject applications. 15 Environmental Analysis An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA to determine whether any significant impacts on the environment would ..result from the construction of the proposed project. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review on May 25, 2010 with the public review comment period ending on June 25, 2010. The report is contained in Attachment H and concludes that there will be no significant impacts upon the environment with incorporation of mitigation measures in the areas of construction effects, neighborhood effects, and noise. The Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) included a comprehensive analysis of potential impacts under strict guidelines dictated by the State. 21 CEQA subject areas (e.g. air quality, noise, transportation, etc.) were analyzed as would have been done for an Environmental Impact. Report (EIR). The Final MND concluded that the proposed project, with mitigation measures, would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts, and an EIR was therefore not required. Public Outreach The public notice for this hearing was published at least 10 days prior to the hearing in the Santa Monica Daily Press and mailed to all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the subject property. Correspondence received since the August 18, 2010 Planning Commission hearing is provided as Attachment F. Financial Impacts & Budget Actions The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budgetary or fiscal impact. 16 Prepared by: Tony Kim, Senior Planner Approved: Development Forwarded to Council: ~'~~~~~ Rod Gould City Manager A. Appellant's Appeal Statement B. Planning Commission Statement of Official Action, August 18, 2010 C. Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments, August 18, 2010 D. Draft Planning Commission Minutes, August 18, 2010 E. Staff Recommended Findings and Conditions F. Correspondence Received Since the August 18, 2010 Public Hearing G. Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program H. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 301 Ocean Avenue Condominium Project I. Project Plans and Photographs 17 Attachments: 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. 18 City of ~~9$a ®~'91~ Planning and Community Development Department City Planning Division (310) 458-8341 A ~ L FORM (Please Type or Print all Information) Application Number Filed: By: r, ~~~ APPELLANT NAME: ~>''YJZP/7 S In ~P~n ~~r ~.~ ~~ ~cefi ~ C1+l~nu~ IV?ic,~ba~~ju APPELLANT ADDRESS: >j~1~ , )C1Y! ~cr=r,,~_f3ly~' ~J~ CONTACT PERSON: Ji bus ~f«anr~ Phone: did 3`~L1 ~ ~S~' (all corres and nce will be mailed to this address) Address: Sy ~ c~;, 4~i~ n~e 13Jv~1'f1y ~San~~, /~ntaira C.~' 9©~62 PROJECT CASE NUMBER(S$ : D+P !f~-Gtr J ~ 1 ,~I` JGi-LOZ 11~t~ i/~-iY~g PROJECT ADDRESS:.~j0% Drr~on ~#V'/~nJ/F APPLICANT: artl CJCan i ~~v<,~. n,~ri~ LL.<' ORIGINAL HEARING DATE: ~ z/~u ~ I ,~ 2 C7 i ACTION BEING APPEALED: >~iDt>~n~-sl cg-F JJ2y~loliman~ ~'evlf.~' ~d~ 1JC~r~y~ Please state the specifiic reason(s) for the appeal {use separate sheet if necessary): Is the appeal related to the discretionary action and fiindings issued for the proposed project? ~ Yes _ No If yes, explain: ~ t ~.ti Is the appeal related to the conditions of approval? Yes _ No If yes, which conditions and why: e LI C erg; Is the appeal related t//o design issues? ~ Yes _ No If yes, explain: SP! ~ctc~r m c r19'"° Is the appeal related #o compatibility issues such as building height, massing, pedestrian orientation, etc.? X Yes _ No If yes, explain: Se C Is the appeal related to non-compliance with the Santa Monica Municipal Code? _ Yes X No If yes, which Code section(s) does the project not comply with and why: Is the appeal related to environmental impacts associated with the project? ~ Yes _ No If yes, explain: S~ Cl 1, ~ Is the appeal related to other issues? X Yes _ No If yes, explain: APPELI_.~NT SIGNA~I.IRE: N®T~: ~A hearing date inforrnation regarding the Planning division staff to on the appeal will not be scheduled untiB sufficient basis for the appeal has been received to enable City prepare the required analysis for the staff report. Attachment to Appeal of DR 10-001, TM 10-002, VAR 10-008 Attachment 1 Page 1 Appeal of the approval of the Design Review Application, Approval of the Variance, Approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 301 Ocean Avenue Project Case Numbers: DR 10-001, TM 10-002, VAR 10-008 Original Hearing Date: August 18, 2010 1. The Statement of Official Action fails to include the certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. There were significant alterations to the MND that were made after the 30 day period that the MND was posted on the Internet for public review and comment. There was no oppornuuty for review and comment subsequent to the changes thereby depriving the public of the opportunity to review and comment on the new document. 2. The conditions of approval fail to include provisions for mitigation of landslide hazards inherently created by the magnitude of soil displacement in an area that the City of Santa Monica has identified as having high potential for landslides. 3. The proposed project is not compatible with and does not relate harmoniously with surrounding neighborhoods. There are no Spanish Revival style apartments in the adjacent neighborhoods either on Ocean Avenue or on San Vicente Boulevard. The only other structures that have similar massing to the proposed project have been considered to be gross mistakes made by prior planners. 4. The variance moves mass from the fourth floor reaz area of the project forward in the site and down to the second and third floors which increases the appearance of massing from the street view and creates even less compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods. 5. The environmental impacts are severely understated and proceeding without the benefit of an Environmental Impact Report raises the danger of serious harm to the city on many issues. 6. The MND erroneously contends that the project will have less than significant impact on the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings when the proposed project is a clear incongruity with the existing structural character of the neighborhood. 7. The MND erroneously contends that the project will have no impact on historical resources. The MND does not mention contradictions that occur in two PCR reports concerning the existing property. Additionally the property has been identified by accredited architectural historians as the gateway to a proposed historical district on San Vicente Boulevard. A full report of the impact on the neighborhood and the entire city is warranted. 8. The MND erroneously contends that the social and economical impacts of the project would be less than significant, yet it asserts that the project will result in the loss of 47 affordable rental units to be replaced by 5 "moderate income condominiums". Another impact is the reduction of rental residents by 90, and the increase in upscale condo owners qualifying for luxury condominiums. The econamic and social impacts of those facts require deeper study. Attachment to Appeal of DR 10-001, TM 10-002, VAR 10-008 Page 2 9. The palisades approximately 100 feet West of the project are in a state of erosion. Many neighborhood residents are seriously concerned that the MND does not delve deeply enough into the hazards of the excavation of approximately 31,566 cubic yards of soil in an area that the City of Santa Monica has identified as having high potential for landslides. ATTACHMENT B PLANNING COMMISSION STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION, AUGUST 18, 2010 19 ~uniu naonaca PROJECT INFORMATION CASE NUMBERS:. Development Review Permit 10-001, Tract Map 10-002, Variance 10-008 LOCATION: 301 Ocean Avenue APPLICANT: 301 Ocean Development LLC PROPERTY OWNER: 301 Ocean Development LLC CASE PLANNER: Tony Kim, Senior Planner REQUEST: Development Review Permit (10DR-001) to construct a new three and four-story, 20-unit condominium complex consisting of three buildings oriented around a central courtyard with two levels of subterranean parking; Vesting Tentative Tract Map 10TM-002 (VTTM No. 71268) to subdivide one lot into twenty airspace parcels in conjunction with a proposed twenty-unit residential condominium development pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.20.04.030; and Variance (10VAR008) to allow the second and third floor parcel coverages to exceed the limits set forth by the Municipal Code. CEQA STATUS: An Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and adopted by the Planning Commission on August 18, 2010. A Notice of Intent for the Draft IS/MND was posted for a 30-day public comment period. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 10-010. (Planning Commission Series) on August 18, 2010 making the necessary findings to approve the project and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION August 18, 2010 X Determination Date Approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions below. Denied. Other: EFFECTIVE DATES OF ACTIONS IF NOT APPEALED: August 29, 2010 EXPIRATION DATE OF ANY PERMITS August 29, 2012 GRANTED: LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE 12 months (Development Review Permit EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES": and Variance) Maximum three (3) years with Planning Commission approval (Vesting Tentative Tract Map) Any request for an extension of the expiration date must be received in the City Planning Division prior to expiration of this permit. 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: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS 1. The physical location, size, massing, and placement of proposed structures on the site and the location of proposed uses within the project are compatible with and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods, in that the proposed condominium project will consist of three separate buildings located around a central courtyard that will be accessible from both Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. The separation of the three buildings reduces the scale of the project, and the openings into the courtyard along with the additional upper level building stepbacks along Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard provide for an articulated project compatible with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood. While the development standards for the R4 district allow for four- story buildings, the building located along San Vicente Boulevard will consist of three stories. The reduced fourth story footprint and lower building height along San Vicente Boulevard allows for a project that appropriately transitions in height 2 between the adjacent residential buildings. Garden terraces and open balconies along both street frontages create a pedestrian environment that relate harmoniously to the surrounding residential neighborhood, and extensive landscaping throughout the project also contributes to the residential scale of the surrounding area. In addition, the Spanish Revival style of the project utilizing white plaster and the work fits into the eclectic design styles of the surrounding residential buildings and reflects upon older Spanish courtyard homes found throughout the City. 2. The rights-of-way can accommodate autos and pedestrians, including parking and access, in that the project site is located along Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard which provide vehicular and pedestrian access to the site. In addition, access to the site and the subterranean parking is available for autos and pedestrians from First Court alley. 43 parking spaces will be provided in the subterranean garage including four guest parking spaces. 3. The health and safety services (police, fire, etc.) and public infrastructure (e.g. utilities) are sufficient to accommodate the new development, in that the subject property is located within a developed urbanized environment that is adequately served by existing health and safety services, infrastructure, and public utilities and services. The proposed 20-unit project will replace an existing 47-unit building and is not anticipated to create a need for additional utilities or services. 4. The project is generally consistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan, in that except for the Variance request for the additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors, all other aspects of the project will be designed to meet the development standards within the Municipal Code. Objective 1.10 of the Land Use Element calls for expanding the opportunity for residential land use while protecting the scale and character of existing neighborhoods. Policy 1.10.1 encourages the development of new housing in all residential-districts while still protecting the character and scale of neighborhoods. The proposed project will provide twenty residential units of which five will be affordable housing units for qualified moderate-income households. Reduced parcel coverage on the fourth floor will create a project that is more compatible in scale and character with the existing surrounding neighborhood. The provision of an expansive central courtyard accessible from both Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard along with upper level .building stepbacks will provide for an articulated project compatible with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood and allow for a project that appropriately transitions in height between the adjacent residential buildings. 5. Reasonable mitigation measures have been included for all adverse impacts identified in the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, in that a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is required for projects that require changes or adopt mitigation measures to avoid significant environmental effects. The primary purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the mitigation measures 3 identified in the Final MND are implemented, thereby minimizing identified environmental effects. The proposed MMRP includes identification of the method of verification of compliance, the timing during which the measure should be implemented, the frequency of the monitoring, and the enforcement/ monitoring/reporting agency. Mitigation measures related to construction effects, neighborhood effects, and noise have been incorporated into the MMRP to ensure that there will be no significant impacts upon the environment. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FINDINGS 1. The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Government Code Section 65451. Specifically, while the subject property is not located in an area governed by a specific plan as specified in Government Code Section 65451, compliance with the City's General Plan is required. For the purpose of subdividing the subject parcel, there are two pertinent policies that must be evaluated with the map; those policies relate to building height and unit density. As noted and shown on the subject map, the project complies with applicable .policies, including unit density and height standards for the subject land use designation. 2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Specifically, while the subject property is not located in an area governed by a specific plan, compliance with the City's General Plan is required. As noted and shown on the subject map, the proposed improvements will not exceed land use designation limits to building height and unit density. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. Specifically, the subject parcel is a standard-sized parcel located within an urbanized area adequately served by existing roadways and infrastructure. The property is physically able to accommodate the proposed development. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Specifically, the subject parcel is astandard-sized parcel located within an urbanized area adequately served by existing roadways and infrastructure. Moreover the type of development and unit density is consistent with policies set forth in the City's General Plan and other improvements in the general vicinity. 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and. avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, in that the proposed subdivision is located in an urbanized area that does not contain habitats or would otherwise injure fish and wildlife. 6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The .proposed subdivision is for a property 4 located in an urbanized area and is consistent with other similar improvements in the area. As noted and shown on the map, the project complies with height and unit density limitations set forth in the General Plan. The subdivision of the parcel does not.have the potential to disrupt the urban environment or otherwise cause serious public health problems. 7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision in that there are no public easements located within the proposed subdivision. 8. The proposed subdivision is consistent with any ordinance or law of the City of Santa Monica. Specifically, the project has demonstrated compliance with applicable unit density and height limitations set forth in the underlying land use designation. Moreover, as conditioned, the project must comply with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, which will be comprehensively evaluated during the City's plan check review process, prior to issuance of a building permit. VARIANCE FINDINGS 1. There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification. Specifically, the curved triangular shape of the subject property is unique to other standard rectilinear-shaped properties in the general area. The front of the property is located along Ocean Avenue while the large curved expanse along San Vicente Boulevard is considered a side of the property. The requirements for additional building articulation and stepbacks along the street necessitates the reallocation of parcel coverage elsewhere on the property while maintaining the project's compatibility in mass and .scale to adjacent existing residential buildings. 2. The granting of such variance will not be detrimental nor injurious to the property or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located in that the additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors would result in reduced parcel coverage on the fourth floor creating a project that is more compatible in mass and scale with the surrounding buildings and uses. The additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors would result in a decreased fourth floor footprint allowing the fourth floor to be located further setback from the street and thereby reducing the visible mass and scale of the project. The provision of an expansive central courtyard accessible from both Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard would not be affected by the additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors. The courtyard and the upper level building stepbacks provide for an articulated project compatible with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood and allow for a project that 5 appropriately transitions in height between the adjacent residential buildings. 3. The strict application of the provisions of this Chapter would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, not including economic difficulties or economic hardships in that that due to existing parcel constraints and the placement of adjacent uses, practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships would result in attempting to create a project compatible in mass and scale to existing two and three story buildings in the general area. The curved triangle shape of the parcel and large expanse of the side elevation along San Vicente Boulevard requires additional building articulation and stepbacks along the street and thereby necessitating the reallocation of parcel coverage elsewhere on the property. The strict application of the parcel coverage limits on the second and third floor would result in increased building mass on the fourth floor resulting in a project design that is incompatible with the neighborhood in terms of mass and scale and would not adequately transition in height with the surrounding buildings. 4. .The granting of a variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter, nor to the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. Specifically, Objective 1.10 calls for expanding the opportunity for residential land use while protecting the scale and character of existing neighborhoods. Policy 1.10.1 encourages the development of new housing in all residential districts while still protecting the character and scale of neighborhoods. The granting of a variance to allow the second and third floor parcel coverages to exceed the limits set forth by the Municipal Code would result in reduced parcel coverage on the fourth floor creating a project that is more compatible in scale and character with the existing surrounding neighborhood. The provision of an expansive central courtyard accessible from both Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard would not be affected by the additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors. The courtyard and the upper level building stepbacks provide for an articulated project compatible with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood and allow for a project that appropriately transitions in height between the adjacent residential buildings. 5. The variance would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be located in that the additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors would result in reduced parcel coverage on the fourth floor creating a project that is more compatible in mass and scale with the surrounding buildings and uses. The district in which the subject project is located includes building ranging between two stories in height to multi-story high-rise towers. The additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors would result in a decreased fourth floor footprint allowing the fourth floor to be located further setback from the street and thereby reducing the visible mass and scale of the project. The provision of an expansive central courtyard accessible from both Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard would not be affected by the additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors. The courtyard and the 6 upper level building stepbacks provide for an articulated project compatible with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood and allow for a project that appropriately transitions in height between the adjacent residential buildings. 6. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance in that the subject parcel is a standard-sized parcel located within an urbanized area adequately served by existing roadways and infrastructure. The property is physically able to accommodate the proposed development with the additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors while still providing enough space for a central courtyard and adequate setbacks. The property is relatively level and has been previously developed with a 47-unit apartment complex. 7. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed variance would not be detrimental to public health and safety in that the subject property is located within a developed urbanized environment that is adequately served by existing infrastructure, public utilities and services. The property has been previously developed with a 47-unit apartment complex, and it is not anticipated- that approval of the subject application fora 20-unit complex with additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors will create a need for additional utilities or services. 8. There will be adequate provisions for public access to serve the subject variance proposal in that adequate pedestrian and vehicular access will be available from Ocean Avenue, San Vicente Boulevard, and First Court alley. Bus stops are also located within close proximity to the subject site. 9. The strict application of the provisions of this Chapter would result in unreasonable deprivation of the use or enjoyment of the property in that due to existing parcel constraints and the placement of adjacent uses, practical use or enjoyment of the subject parcel would not be possible. The curved triangle shape of the parcel and large expanse of the side elevation along San Vicente Boulevard requires additional building articulation and stepbacks along the street and thereby necessitating the reallocation of parcel coverage elsewhere on the property. The strict application of the parcel coverage limits on the second and third floor would result in increased building mass on the fourth floor resulting in a project design that is not compatible in mass and scale to the surrounding neighborhood and would affect the viability of the subject project. 7 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Administrative 1. The Planning Commission's approval, conditions of approval, or denial of this application may be appealed to the City Council if the appeal is filed with the Zoning Administrator within fourteen consecutive days following the date of the Planning Commission's determination in the manner provided in Part 9.04.20.24, Sections 9.04.20.24.010 through 9.04.20.24.040. An appeal of the approval, conditions of approval, or denial of a subdivision map must be filed with the City Clerk within ten consecutive days following the date of Planning Commission determination in the manner provided in Part 9.20.14, Section 9.20.14.070. Any appeal must be made in the form required by the Zoning Administrator. The approval of this permit shall expire if the rights granted are not exercised within two years from the permit's effective date. Exercise of rights shall mean issuance of a building permit to commence construction. 2. Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.04.10.02.450(d), if the Building Official determines that another building permit has been issued less than fifteen months prior to the date on which the building permit for this project has received all plan check approvals and none of the relevant exceptions specified in 9.04.10.02.450(c) and (e) apply, the Building Official shall place the project on a waiting list in order of the date and time of day that the permit application received all plan check approvals, and the term of this approval and other City approvals or permits necessary to commence the project shall be automatically extended by the amount of time that a project remains on the waiting list. However, the permit shall also expire if the building permit expires, if final inspection is not completed or a Certificate of Occupancy is not issued within the time periods specified in SMMC Section 8.08.060. One one-year extension may be permitted if approved by the Director of Planning. Applicant is on notice that time extensions shall not be granted if development standards or the development process relevant to the project have changed since project approval. Extension requests to a subdivision map must be approved by the Planning Commission. 3. The tentative map shall expire 24 months after approval, except as provided in the provisions of California Government Code Section 66452.6. and Subchapter 9.20.18 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. During this time period the final map shall be presented to the City of Santa Monica for approval. No building permit for the project will be granted until such time as the final map is approved by the Santa Monica City Council. 4. Within ten days of City Planning Division transmittal of the Statement of Official Action, project applicant shall sign and return a copy of the Statement of Official Action prepared by the City Planning Division, agreeing to the conditions of s approval and acknowledging that failure to comply with such conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval. By signing same, applicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights applicant may possess regarding said conditions. The signed Statement shall be returned to the City Planning Division. Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute grounds for potential permit revocation. 5. Within thirty (30) days after final approval of the project, a sign shall be posted on site stating the date and nature of the approval. The sign shall be posted in accordance with the Zoning Administrator guidelines and shall remain in place until a building permit is issued for the project. The sign shall be removed promptly when a building permit is issued for the project or upon expiration of the Design Compatibility Permit. 6. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied. 7. Applicant is advised that projects in the California Coastal Zone may need approval of the California Coastal Commission prior to issuance of any building permits by the City of Santa Monica. Applicant is responsible for obtaining any such permits. Conformance with Approved Plans 8. This approval is for those plans dated August 4, 2010, a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the City Planning Division. Project development shall be consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval. 9. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning: A significant change in the approved concept shall be subject to Planning Commission Review. Construction shall be in conformance with the plans submitted or as modified by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board or Director of Planning. 10. Project plans shall be subject to complete Code Compliance review when the building plans are submitted for plan check and shall comply with all applicable provisions of Article IX of the Municipal Code and all other pertinent ordinances and General Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica prior to building permit issuance. Affordable Housing Obligation 11. Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter 9.56, the project is subject to the City's Affordable Housing Production Program which requires the 9 proposed 20-unit condominium development to provide twenty-five (25) percent of the units affordable to moderate income households on-site or five (5) units. The applicant will satisfy this affordable housing obligation by providing five (5) two-bedroom moderate income on-site ownership units pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.050(b). Prioritization of potential occupants of the affordable housing unit(s) shall be in accordance with the Affordable Housing Production Program Ordinance Guidelines. Fees 12. A Park and Recreation Facilities Tax of $200.00 per residential unit shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of a building permit for the construction or placement of the residential unit(s) on the subject lot, per and subject to the provisions of Section 6.80.010 et seq. of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. 13. Prior to issuance of a condominium license, the developer shall provide for the payment of a Condominium Tax of $1,000 per planned salable unit pursuant to Chapter 6.76 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. 14. No building permit shall be issued for the project until the developer complies with the requirements of Part 9.04.10.20 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, Private Developer Cultural Arts Requirement. If the developer elects to comply with these requirements by providing on-site public art work or cultural facilities, no final City approval shall be granted until such time as the Director of the Community and Cultural Services Department issues a notice of compliance in accordance with Part 9.04.10.20. 15. No building permit shall be issued for the project until the developer complies with the requirements of Chapter 9.72 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, the Child Care Linkage Program. Mitigation Monitoring. Program 16. Pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Planning Division will coordinate a monitoring and reporting program regarding any required changes to the project made in conjunction with project approval and any conditions of approval, including those conditions intended to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. This program shall include, but is not limited to, ensuring that the City Planning Division itself and other City divisions and departments such as the Building and Safety Division, the Department of Environmental and Public Works, the Fire Department, the Police Department, the Planning and Community Development Department and the Finance Department are aware of project requirements which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a Building Permit, Certificate of Occupancy, or other permit, and that other responsible agencies are also informed of conditions 10 relating to their responsibilities. Project owner shall demonstrate compliance with conditions of approval in a written report submitted to the Planning Director and Building Officer prior to issuance of a Building Permit or Certificate of Occupancy, and, as applicable, provide periodic reports regarding compliance .with such conditions. Construction Effects • Construction Impact Mitigation Plan. The applicant shall prepare, implement, and maintain a Construction Impact Mitigation Plan which shall be designed to: o Prevent material traffic impact on the surrounding roadway network. o Minimize parking impacts both to public parking and access to private parking to the greatest extent practicable. o Ensure safety for both those constructing the project and surrounding community. o Prevent substantial truck traffic through residential neighborhoods. • The Construction Impact Mitigation Plan shall be subject to review and approval by the following City departments: Public Works Department, Fire, Planning and Community Development, and Police to ensure that the Plan has been designed in accordance with this Mitigation Measure. This review shall occur prior to commencement of any construction staging for the project. It shall at a minimum include the following: • Ongoing Requirements Throughout the Duration of Construction o A detailed traffic control plan for work zones shall be maintained. At a minimum, this shall include: parking and travel lane configuration; warning, regulatory, guide, and directional signage; and area sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and parking lanes. The plan shall include specific information regarding the project's construction activities that. may disrupt normal pedestrian and traffic flow and the measures to address these disruptions. Such plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Transportation Management Division prior to commencement of construction and implemented in accordance with this approval. o Work within the public right-of-way shall be performed between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. This work included dirt and demolition materials hauling and construction material delivery. Work within the public right-of-way outside of these hours shall only be allowed after the issuance of an after-hours construction permit. o Streets and equipment shall be cleaned in accordance with established PW requirements. o Trucks shall only travel on aCity-approved construction route. Truck queing/staging shall not be allowed on Santa Monica streets. Limited queing may occur on the construction site itself. o Materials and equipment shall be minimally visible to the public; the preferred location for materials is to be onsite, with a minimum amount of materials within a work area in the public right-of-way, subject to current Use of Public Property Permit. 11 o Any requests for work before or after normal construction hours with the public right-of-way shall be subject to review and approval through the After Hours Permit process administered by the Building and Safety Division. o Provision of off-street parking for construction workers, which may include the use. of a remote location with shuttle transport to the site, if determined necessary by the City of Santa Monica. • Project Coordination Elements That Shall Be Implemented Prior to Commencement of Construction o The applicant shall advise the traveling public of impending construction activities (e.g., information signs; portable message signs, media listing/information, and implementation of an approved traffic control plan). o The applicant shall obtain a Use of Private Property Permit, Excavation Permit, Sewer Permit, or Oversize Load Permit, as well as Caltrans Permits required, for any construction work requiring encroachment into public right-of-way, detours, or any other work within the public right-of- way. o The applicant shall provide timely notification of construction schedules to all affected agencies (e.g., Big Blue Bus, Police Department, Fire Department, Public Works Department, and Planning and Community Development Department) and to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property within a radius of 500 feet. o The applicant shall coordinate construction work with affected agencies in advahce of start of work. Approvals may take up to two weeks per each submittal o .The applicant shall obtain Transportation Management Division approval of any haul routes for earth, concrete, or construction materials and equipment hauling. • Diesel Equipment Mufflers. All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory recommended mufflers. • Electrically-Powered Tools. Electrically powered tools shall be used to run air compressors and similar powered tools. Restrictions on Excavation and Foundation/Conditioning. Excavation, foundation-laying, and conditioning activities (the noisiest phases of construction) shall be restricted to between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, in accordance with Section 4.12.110(d) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. • Additional Noise Attenuation Techniques. For all noise-generating construction activity on the project site, additional noise attenuation techniques shall be employed as necessary to reduce noise levels to City of Santa Monica noise standards. Such techniques may include the use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment and the construction of temporary sound barriers between construction sites and nearby sensitive .receptors. 12 • Construction Sign Posting. In accordance with Municipal Code Section 4.12.120, the project applicant shall post a sign informing all workers and subcontractors of the time restrictions for construction activities. The sign shall also include the City telephone numbers where violations can be reported and complaints associated with construction noise can be submitted. Cultural Resources 17. If any archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation or construction, work in the affected area shall be suspended and a recognized specialist shall be contacted to conduct a survey of the affected area at project's owner's expense. A determination shall then be made by the Director of Planning to determine the significance of the survey findings and appropriate actions and requirements, if any, to address such findings. CC&Rs 18. Prior to issuance of building permits, Condominium Association By-Laws and a Declaration of CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The CC&R's shall contain anon-discrimination clause as presented in SMMC Section 9.20.20.020 and such provisions as are required by SMMC Section 9.04.16.01.030(d) and (e). Project Operations 19. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or other actions. 20. The project shall at all times comply with the provisions of the Noise Ordinance (SMMC Chapter 4.12). Final Design 21. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash enclosures, and signage shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Board. 22. The Architectural Review. Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the project's pedestrian orientation and amenities; scale and articulation of design elements; exterior colors, textures and materials; window treatment; glazing; and landscaping. 23. The existing mature trees shall be preserved in their present location on site, relocated to a specific location on site or replaced with specimen trees to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board. 13 24. !n addition to other landscaping requirements, the Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall ensure that at least 50% of the unexcavated side yard setback area (s) shall be adequately landscaped. 25. Landscaping plans shall comply with Subchapter 9.04.10.04 (Landscaping Standards) of the Zoning Ordinance including use of water-conserving landscaping materials, landscape maintenance and other standards contained in the Subchapter. 26. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall be screened in accordance with SMMC Section 9.04.10.02.130, 140, and 150. Refuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site need, including recycling. The Architectural Review Board in its review shall pay particular attention to the screening of such areas and equipment. Any rooftop mechanical equipment shall be minimized in height and area, and shall be located in such a way as to minimize noise and visual impacts to surrounding properties. Unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Board, rooftop mechanical equipment shall be located at least five feet from the edge of the roof. Except for solar hot water heaters, no residential water heaters shall be located on the roof. 27. No gas or electric meters shall be located within the required front or street side yard setback areas. The Architectural Review Board in its review shall pay particular attention to the location and screening of such meters. 28. Prior to consideration of the project by the Architectural Review Board,. the applicant shall review disabled access requirements with the Building and Safety Division and make any necessary changes in the project design to achieve compliance with such .requirements. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the aesthetic, landscaping, and setback impacts of any ramps or other features necessitated by accessibility requirements. 29. As appropriate, the Architectural Review Board shall require the use of anti- graffiti materials on surfaces likely to attract graffiti. 30. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the appropriateness of the architectural style and aesthetic given the project location and its surroundings, the era of its construction, and the gateway location of the subject property into the City. 31. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the street facing building elevations along San Vicente Boulevard and Ocean Avenue. 32. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the appropriateness, pedestrian orientation, scale, and compatibility of the gates 14 along San Vicente Boulevard and Ocean Avenue leading to the central courtyard. 33. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the landscaping to ensure that adequate soil depth and area are provided for all plantings. In addition, adequate landscaping shall be located along First Court alley in order to provide an appropriate transition and buffer between the subject project and the adjacent buildings to the east. Construction Plan Requirements 34. Final building plans submitted for approval of a building permit shall include on the plans a list of all permanent mechanical equipment to be placed indoors which may be heard outdoors. Demolition Requirements 35. Until such time as the demolition is undertaken, and unless the structure is currently in use, the existing structure shall be .maintained and secured by boarding up all openings, erecting a security fence, and removing all debris, bushes and planting that inhibit the easy surveillance of the property to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Officer and the Fire Department. Any landscaping material remaining shall be watered and maintained until demolition occurs. 36. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, applicant shall prepare for Building Division approval a rodent and pest control plan to insure that demolition and construction activities at the site do not create pest control impacts on the project neighborhood. Construction Period 37. During demolition, excavation, and construction, this project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 to minimize fugitive dust and associated particulate emission, including but not limited to the following: • All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least three times daily with complete coverage, preferably at the start of the day, in the late morning, and after work is done for the day. • All grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph measured as instantaneous wind gusts) so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • All material transported on and off-site shall be securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • Soils stockpiles shall be covered. 15 • Onsite vehicle speeds shall be limited to 15 mph. • Wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit the construction site onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. • An appointed construction relations officer shall act as a community liaison concerning onsite construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM~o generation. • Streets shall be swept at the end of the day using SCAQMD Rule 1186 certified street sweepers or roadway washing trucks if visible soil is carried onto adjacent public paved roads (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). • All active portions the construction site shall be sufficiently watered three times a day to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 38. Immediately after demolition and during construction, a security fence, the height of which shall be the maximum permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained around the perimeter of the lot. The lot shall be kept clear of all trash, weeds, etc. 39. Vehicles hauling dirt or other construction debris from the site shall cover any open load with a tarpaulin or other secure covering to minimize dust emissions. Immediately after commencing dirt removal from the site, the general contractor shall provide the City of Santa Monica with written certification that all trucks leaving the site are covered in accordance with this condition of approval. 40. Developer shall prepare a notice, subject to the review by the Director of Planning and Community Development, that lists all construction mitigation requirements, permitted hours of construction, and identifies a contact person at City Hall as well as the developer who will respond to complaints related to the proposed construction. The notice shall be mailed to property owners and residents within a 200-foot radius from the subject site at least five (5) days prior to the start of construction. 41. A sign shall be posted on the property in a manner consistent with the public hearing sign requirements which shall identify the address and phone number of the owner and/or applicant for the purposes of responding to questions and complaints during the construction period. Said sign shall also indicate the hours of permissible construction work. 42. A copy of these conditions shall be posted in an easily visible and accessible location at all times during construction at the project site. The pages shall be laminated or otherwise protected to ensure durability of the copy. 16 Standard Conditions 43. Lofts or mezzanines shall not exceed 33.3% of the room below unless compliance with the district's limits on number of stories can be maintained. Lofts or mezzanines located in studio units shall not exceed 99 square feet unless parking in compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements is provided. 44. No fence, gate, or wall within the required front. yard setback, inclusive of any subterranean garage slab and fencing, gate, or railing on top thereof, shall exceed a height of 42" above actual grade of the property. 45. Mechanical equipment shall not be located on the side of any building which is adjacent to a residential building on the adjoining lot, unless otherwise permitted by applicable regulations. Roof locations may be used when the mechanical equipment is installed within asound-rated parapet enclosure. 46. Final approval of any mechanical equipment installation will require a noise test in compliance with SMMC Section 4.12.040. Equipment for the test shall be provided by the owner or contractor and the test shall be conducted by the owner or contractor. A copy of the noise test results on mechanical equipment shall be submitted to the Community Noise Officer for review to ensure that noise levels do not exceed maximum allowable levels for the applicable noise zone. 47. Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be subject to the review and approval of the Transportation Management Division. 48. Prior. to issuance of a building permit, a copy of the recorded map shall be provided to the City Planning Division. 49. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Subchapter 9.04.16 Condominiums. 50. Construction period signage shall be subject to the approval of the Architectural Review Board. 51. The property owner shall insure any graffiti on the site is promptly removed through compliance with the City's graffiti removal program. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (PW) Drainage 52. To mitigate storm water and surface runoff from the project site, an Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan may be required by the Department of Public Works pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 7.10. Prior to submittal of landscape plans for 17 Architectural Review Board approval, the applicant shall contact Public Works to determine applicable requirements, which include the following: • Non-stormwater runoff, sediment and construction waste from the construction site and parking areas is prohibited from leaving the site; • An sediments or materials which are tracked off-site must be removed the same day they are tracked off-site; • Excavated soil must be located on the site and soil piles should be covered and otherwise protected so that sediments do not go into the .street or adjoining properties; • Washing of construction or other vehicles shall be allowed adjacent to a construction site. No runoff from washing vehicles on a construction site shall be allowed to leave the site; • Drainage controls may be required depending on the extent of grading and topography of the site; and • New development is required to reduce projected runoff pollution by at least twenty percent through incorporation of design elements or principles,. such as increasing permeable surfaces, diverting or catching runoff via swales, berms, and the. like; orientation of drain gutters towards permeable areas; modification of grades; use of retention structures and other methods. 53. Automotive repair facilities and dealerships, parking areas and structures, automotive paint shops, gas stations, equipment degreasing areas, and other facilities generating wastewater with significant oil and grease content are required to pretreat these wastes before discharging to the City sewer or storm drain system. Pretreatment will require that a clarifier or oil/water separator be installed and maintained on site. In cases where settleable solids are present (or expected) in greater amounts than floatable oil and grease, a clarifier unit will be required. In cases where the opposite waste characteristics are present, an oil/water separator with automatic oil draw-off will be required instead. The Public Works Department will set specific requirements. Building permit plans shall show the required installation. Hazardous Materials 54. Prior to the demolition of any existing structure, the applicant shall submit a report from an industrial hygienist to be reviewed and approved as to content and form by the Public Works /Environmental Programs Division. The report shall consist of a hazardous materials survey for the structure proposed for demolition. The report shall include a section on asbestos and in accordance with the South Coast AQMD Rule 1403, the asbestos survey shall be performed by a state Certified Asbestos Consultant (CAC). The report shall include a section on lead, which shall be performed by a state Certified Lead Inspector/Assessor. Additional hazardous materials to be considered by the industrial hygienist shall .include: mercury (in thermostats, switches, fluorescent light); polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (including light Ballast), and fuels, pesticides, and batteries. 18 Streets 55. Unless otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable during the grading and construction phase of the project. 56. Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need replacing or removal as a result of the project as determined by the Department of Public Works shall be reconstructed to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. Approval for this work shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of the building permits. 57. Street and/or alley lighting shall be provided on public rights of way adjacent to the project if and as needed per the specifications and with the approval of the Department of Public Works. Off-site 58. All off-site improvements required by the City Engineer shall be installed. Plans and specifications for. off-site improvements shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer. 59. A subdivision improvement agreement for all off-site improvements required by the City Engineer shall be prepared and a performance bond posted through the City Attorney's office. Environmental Mitigation 60. To mitigate solid waste impacts, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, project owner shall submit a recycling plan to the Department of Public Works for its approval. The recycling plan shall include: 1) List of materials such as white paper, computer paper, metal cans, and glass to be recycled; 2) Location of recycling bins; 3) Designated recycling coordinator; 4) Nature and extent of internal and external pick-up service; 5) .Pick-up schedule; and 6) Plan to inform tenants/ occupants of service. 61. Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures are required on all new development and remodeling where plumbing is to be added, including dual flush toilets, 1.0 gallon urinals and low flow shower heads. 19 Construction Period Mitigation 62. A construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by the applicant for approval by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit. The approved mitigation plan shall be posted on the site for the duration of the project construction and shall be produced upon request. As applicable, this plan shall 1) Specify the names, addresses, telephone numbers and business license numbers of all contractors and subcontractors as well as the developer and architect; 2) Describe how demolition of any existing structures is to be accomplished; 3) Indicate where any cranes are to be located for erection/construction; 4) Describe how much of the public street, alleyway, or sidewalk is proposed to be used in conjunction with construction; 5) Set forth the extent and nature of any pile-driving operations; 6) Describe the length and number of any tiebacks which must extend under the property of other persons; 7) Specify the nature and extent of any dewatering and its effect on any adjacent buildings; 8) Describe anticipated construction-related truck routes, number of truck trips, hours of hauling and parking location; 9) Specify the nature and extent of any helicopter hauling; 10) State whether any construction activity beyond normally permitted hours is proposed; 11) Describe any proposed construction noise mitigation measures; including measures to limit the duration of idling construction trucks; 12) Describe construction-period security measures including any fencing, lighting, and security personnel; 13) Provide a drainage plan; 14) Provide aconstruction-period parking plan which shall minimize use of public streets for parking; 15) List a designated on-site construction manager; 16) Provide a construction materials recycling plan which seeks to maximize the reuse/recycling of construction waste; 17) Provide a plan regarding use of recycled and low-environmental-impact materials in building construction; and 18) Provide a construction period water runoff control plan. Final Map Requirements 63. In submitting required materials to the Santa Monica Civil Engineering and Architecture Division for a final map, applicant shall provide a copy of the approved Statement of Official Action. zo 64. The form, contents, accompanying data, and filing of the final subdivision map shall conform to the provisions of SMMC Sections 9.20.12.010 through 9.20.08.090 and the Subdivision Map Act. The required Final Map filing fee shall be paid prior to scheduling of the Final Map for City Council approval. 65. One mylar and one. blue-line copy of the final map. shall be provided to and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder prior to issuance of any building permit fora condominium project pursuant to Government Code Section 66499.30. Applicant shall also provide the County with a copy of this Statement of Official Action at the time the required copies of the map are submitted. 66. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the requirements of Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.10.16.010 (d) shall have been met. Open Space Management 67. Street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as required in a manner consistent with the City's Community Forest Management Plan 2000, per the specifications of the Public Landscape Division of the Community Maintenance Department and the City's Tree Code (SMMC Chapter 7.40). No street trees shall be removed without the approval of the Public Landscape Division. Fire 68. A security gate shall be provided across the opening to the subterranean garage. If any guest parking space is located in the subterranean garage, the security gate shall be equipped with an electronic or other system which will open the gate to provide visitors with vehicular access to the garage without leaving their vehicles. The security gate shall receive approval of the Police and Fire Departments prior to issuance of a building permit. 21 VOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration Ayes: Johnson, Koning, Newbold, Parry, Pugh, Ries Nays: Winterer Abstain: Absent: VOTE: DR 10-001 Ayes: Johnson, Koning, Newbold, Parry, Pugh, Ries, Winterer Nays: Abstain: Absent: VOTE: TM 10-002. VAR 10-008 Ayes: Johnson, Newbold, Parry, Winterer Nays: Koning, Pugh Abstain: Ries Absent: 22 NOTICE If this is a final decision not subject 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 determination of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica. Jim Ries, Chairperson Date Acknowledgement by Permit Holder 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 Date Applicants Signature 23 ATTACHMENT C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS, AUGUST 18, 2010 44 c7® ~;~Yof Planning Commission epor# Santa Moniea Planning Commission Meeting: August 18, 2010 Agenda Item: 99=8 To: Planning Commission From: Amanda Schachter, City Planning Division Manager Subject: Development Review Permit (10DR-001) to construct a new three and four-story, twenty-unit condominium complex consisting of three buildings oriented around a central courtyard with two levels of subterranean parking; Vesting Tentative Tract Map 10TM-002 (VTTM No. 71268) to subdivide one lot into twenty airspace parcels in conjunction with a proposed twenty-unit residential condominium development pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.20.04.030; and Variance (10VAR008) to allow the second and third floor parcel coverages to exceed the limits set forth by the Municipal Code. Address: 301 Ocean Avenue Applicant: 301 Ocean Development LLC Recommended Action It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following action(s) subject to findings and/or conditions contained in Attachment B: 1. Adopt the draft resolution certifying the attached Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Approve applications 10DR-001, 10TM-002, and 10VAR008 Executive Summary The proposed project consists of a new 20-unit condominium complex within three separate buildings oriented around a central garden courtyard at 301 Ocean Avenue. 43 parking spaces will be provided within two levels of subterranean parking, and an existing 47-unit vacant apartment complex will be demolished to accommodate the proposed project. Located at the southeast corner of Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard, the proposed project requires a Development Review Permit to allow for the construction of the new structures as the overall square footage of the project is in excess of 25,000 square feet. Approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map is required for the subdivision of the property into twenty units. The applicant is also requesting a Variance to allow the second and third floor parcel coverages to exceed the limits set forth by the Municipal Code. A community meeting was held regarding the proposed project on January 31, 2008. Members of the public attended the meeting to learn about various aspects of the project and provide input. Many of the meeting attendants expressed their concerns with the project's relationship to the surrounding neighborhood, the expansive massing of the building, and the need for more building articulation. Most of the attendants expressed their displeasure at the height and overall massing of the proposed building as well as the lack of the project's residential appearance. The applicant has entirely redesigned the building to address many of these concerns. The following issues should be considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project and are addressed in this report: • Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; • Project consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; • Circumstances and potential impacts associated with the proposed Variance; • The compatibility of the proposed project with the surrounding neighborhood. 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. and Site lnformation Land Use V Element Designation: Parcel Area (SF): Parcel Dimensions: Existing On-Site Improvements (Year Built): Rent Control Status/Remaining tenants on-site: Adjacent Zoning Districts and Land Uses: High Density Housing 43,814 SF Irregular lot 47-unit apartment complex (1952) Exempt (Ellis Act) effective 03.17.09 /all existing units vacant West-DP, Palisades Park North - R4, Multi-Family Residential building East- R2 and R1, Multi- Family Residential buildings South - R4, Multi-Family Rocifle~bi..l ~..:~~:_. Subdivision lnformation Tract Map Number: Subdivider/App I ica n t: Number of Units: City Engineer Preliminary Approval Date: Required Off-Site Improvements: Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs): 301 Ocean Development, LLC 20 April 22, 2010 See conditions of approval. e' '~7 f'. Rf -:@ ~'.- The CC&Rs will be reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney consistent with SMMC 9.20.02.060 and prior to approval of the final map. 2 309 Ocean Ave Fees: Parks and Recreation Facilities Tax ($200 /unit). Total tax = $4,000. Condominium Facilities Tax ($1,000 /unit). Total tax = $20,000. Affordable Housing Production Program. See conditions of approval. Cultural Arts Requirement. See conditions of approval. Child Care Linkage Program See conditions of approval The project site is located on a curved triangular shaped property on the southeast corner of Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard: The relatively flat parcel is within the R4 High Density Multiple Family Residential District and surrounded by a variety of residential uses. Athree-story condominium building is located adjacent to the south of the subject property. Atwo-story apartment building that fronts San Vicente Boulevard and atwo-story condominium building that fronts Georgina Avenue are located across First Court alley to the east. Across San Vicente Boulevard to the north is a 17-story condominium tower, and Palisades Park is located across Ocean Avenue to the west. The subject site is currently developed .with a vacant 47-unit apartment complex comprised of two buildings oriented around a courtyard with a pool and landscaping. Background The existing 47-unit apartment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue was built in stages from 1952-1958. In July 2009, the City Council denied an application to designate the property as a City Landmark. 3 - - - ~r g i` ro osal for a new 26-unit condominium In November 2007, the a,~ant introduced a p p building was designed in a develop the San Vicente Boulevard froisZ9g ment at the subject location. The four-s ory ansive g contemporary style with a curved fagade along minoring the curve of the street and property line. The d se to the streep. No courtyard with the entire mass of the building and every unit exp osed, and no openings from either Ocean Avenue or San Vicente Boulevard was prop ro ert were provided. into the interior of the p p y _ __ Meeting and Public Input the originally proposed project on January 3 Community ects of the A community meeting was held regarding 2008. Members of the public attended the meetings tendant bexpressed their concerns rovide input. Many of the meeting neighborhood, the project and p nits relationship to the surroundin articulation. Most of with the project's original desig ~ and the need for more building of the expansive massing of the building, the attendants expressed their displeasure at the heig o e Ys es dent al apPeo ect to originally proposed building as well as the lack of the picant redesigned the p J ro ect, and make it In response to the comments reduce thermass and scale of the pneighborhood. provide increased articulation, more compatible with the residential environment of the surrounding Project Analysis Proiect~-°-n lication for a 20-unit licant submitted a formal app units for On April 20, 2010, the app arking spaces will be provided within two condominium project. Five of the units will be designated as affordable handlthe existing qualified moderate-inco ark nguaccessed from the rear First Court alley, ro osed levels of subterrana~ment complex will be demolished to accommodate the p p 47-unit vacant ap 4 project. The revised project is designed in a Spanish Revival style with gardens, reflecting pools, white-washed plaster, and the work. _ ~ ~n~~ aR b . N~i~ h `za. y A ,,.51 ~ ' iv~~5 ., s ESee .,. z l.. _ • ~r~~ ~ ~ nrniect ranrlarinn- Rn1 rlro~n 4vo The proposed project will consist of three separate buildings located around a central courtyard that will be accessible from both Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. Buildings `A' and 'B' will be four stories in height while building `C', located adjacent to San Vicente Boulevard, will be three stories in height. Revised project site plan - 301 Ocean Ave 5 Development Review Permit A Development Review Permit is required for a development with an overall square footage in excess of 25,000 square feet in the R4 District, and the proposed project measures approximately 56,194 square feet in area. The proposed project is designed to be compatible with the surrounding area and neighborhood which primarily consists of multi-story, multi-family residential buildings ranging between two to seventeen stories in height and with an eclectic mix of architectural styles. The separation of the three buildings reduces the scale of the project, and the openings into the courtyard along with the additional upper level building stepbacks along Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard provide for an articulated project compatible with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood. While the development standards for the R4 district allow for four-story buildings, building `C' located along San Vicente Boulevard consists of three stories. The reduced fourth story footprint and lower building height along San Vicente Boulevard allows for a project that appropriately transitions in height between the adjacent residential buildings. Garden terraces and open balconies along both street frontages create a pedestrian environment that relate harmoniously to the surrounding residential neighborhood, and landscaping throughout the project also contributes to the residential scale of the surrounding area. While a courtyard is not required by the development standards of the R4 district, the applicant is providing a courtyard that measures approximately 7,447 square feet in overall area and provides pedestrian oriented amenities including a reflecting pool, benches, and planters with extensive landscaping. The design of the courtyard with access from both Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard provide visibility into the courtyard and the interior of the site from the street while relating to the open space of Palisades Park across Ocean Avenue to the west. In addition, the Spanish Revival style of the project utilizing white plaster and the work fits into the eclectic design styles of the surrounding residential buildings and reflects upon older Spanish courtyard homes found throughout the City. 6 Photograph of project model - 301 Ocean Ave Vesting Tentative Tract Maa The proposed 20-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 20-unit condominium project for compliance with the High Density Multiple Family Residential (R4) district development standards, and finds that besides the Variance request, the applicant's proposal appears to conform to the applicable zoning and design standards. The project is subject to review by the Architectural Review Board. The project is not subject to the recently adopted LUCE since the Vesting Tentative Tract Map application was determined complete on April 20, 2010. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the City's General Plan in that the 20-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 also meet the intent of the General Plan by not exceeding four stories or 45 feet in height. In addition, the proposal will conform to the density limitations of the R4 district development standards, where a maximum of 49 dwelling units could be permitted on-site. The subject property is relatively flat and does not contain any fish or extensive wildlife habitat. It is located within a neighborhood where the necessary public infrastructure and improvements are currently in-place, and developments of similar use, density and design are prevalent. Pedestrian access to the site is provided from Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard, and vehicular access to the site is by means of the adjacent First Court rear alley. 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. The tract map is included with this report in Attachment G. Variance Request The applicant is also requesting a Variance to allow the second and third story parcel coverages to exceed the limits set forth by the Municipal Code. In return, the applicant is proposing to reduce the fourth story parcel coverage. '' Maximum Parcel .. ~ ~: Praposgd Parcel:Coverage , ° /° Over/Under <,.. ~ . ..-.. G vela e ; ~. . . ,z.,.. ..., a.; ... 1st Story 50% 49% 1% under 2"d Story 80% of 1 s` Story MPC 88% of 15` Story MPC 8% over 3`d Story 60% of 15S Story MPC 68% of 15` Story MPC 8% over 4`" Story 50% of 1~` Story MPC 36% of 1~' Story MPC 14% under The curved triangular shape of the subject property is unique to other standard rectilinear-shaped properties in the general area. The front of the property is located along Ocean Avenue while the large curved expanse along San Vicente Boulevard is considered a side of the property. The requirements for additional building articulation and stepbacks along the street necessitate the reallocation of parcel coverage elsewhere on the property while maintaining the project's compatibility in mass and scale to adjacent existing residential buildings. Approval of the variance would not impair the integrity and character of-the district in which it is to be located in that the additional parcel coverage on the second and third stories would result in reduced parcel coverage on the fourth floor creating a project that is more compatible in mass and scale with the surrounding buildings and uses. The neighborhood in which the. subject project is located includes buildings ranging between two stories in height to multi-story high-rise towers. The decreased fourth floor footprint would allow the fourth floor to be located further setback from the street and thereby reducing the visible mass and scale of the project. The provision of an expansive central courtyard accessible from both Ocean. Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard would not be affected by the additional parcel coverage on the second and third stories. The courtyard and the upper level building stepbacks provide for an articulated project compatible with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood and allow for a project that appropriately transitions in height between the adjacent residential buildings. The strict application of the provisions of the Municipal Code would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, not including economic difficulties or economic hardships in that due to the existing parcel constraints and the placement of adjacent uses, practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships would result in attempting to create a project compatible in mass and scale to existing two and three story buildings in the general-area. The curved triangular shape of the parcel and large expanse of the side elevation along San Vicente Boulevard requires additional building articulation and stepbacks along the street and thereby necessitates the reallocation of parcel coverage elsewhere on the property. The strict application of the parcel coverage limits on the second and third floor would result in increased building mass on the fourth floor resulting in a project design that is incompatible with the neighborhood in terms of mass and scale and would not adequately transition in height with the surrounding buildings. Environmental Analysis Mitigated Negative Declaration An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA to determine whether any significant impacts on the environment would result from the construction of the proposed project: The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for. public review on May 25, 2010 with the public review comment period ending on June 25, 2010. The report is contained in Attachment F and concludes that there will be no significant impacts upon the environment with incorporation of mitigation measures in the areas of construction effects, neighborhood effects, and noise. The Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) included a comprehensive analysis of potential impacts under strict guidelines dictated by the State. 21 CEQA subject areas (e.g. air quality, noise, transportation, etc.) were analyzed as would have been done for s an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Final MND concluded that the proposed project, with mitigation measures, would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts, and an EIR was therefore not required. Comments on Draft MND One comment letter from the State Office of Historic Preservation regarding the MND was received during the 30-day public review and comment period. The comment letter indicated that the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) believed an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared to evaluate the historic significance of the existing building and the options for preserving its historic integrity. Further clarification was also requested by the State OHP on the qualifications of the two historic preservation experts who had previously evaluated the subject property and determined that it did not qualify as a historic resource. While responses to comments for MNDs are not required under CEQA, a detailed response to the comment is included in the Final MND contained in Attachment F. The response clarifies the qualifications of the two historic preservation experts and describes the appropriate standard for assessing the property's historic status. In addition, an independent assessment by the City's environmental consultant of the extensive studies and analysis on record of the subject site along with the applicable standards concluded that the subject property should not be considered a historic resource under CEQA and that preparation of an EIR is not required. Mitigation Monitoring Program A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is required for projects that require changes or adopt mitigation measures to avoid significant environmental effects. The primary purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the Final MND are implemented, thereby minimizing identified environmental effects. The MMRP includes identification of the method of verification of compliance, the timing during which the measure should be implemented, the frequency of the monitoring, and the enforcement/monitoring/reporting agency. Mitigation measures related to construction effects, neighborhood effects, and noise have been incorporated into the MMRP to ensure that there will be no significant impacts upon the environment. The proposed Resolution adopting the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program is included as Attachment F. Alternative Actions: In addition to the recommended action, the Planning Commission could consider the following with respect to the project: A1. Continue the project for specific reasons, consistent with applicable deadlines and with agreement from the applicant A2. Articulate revised findings and/or conditions to Approve OR Deny, with or without prejudice, the subject application 9 Conclusion The proposed project consists of a new 20-unit condominium complex within three separate buildings oriented around a central garden courtyard at 301 Ocean Avenue. 43 parking spaces will be provided within two levels of subterranean parking, and an existing 47-unit vacant apartment complex will be demolished to accommodate the proposed project. Located at the southeast corner of Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard, the proposed project requires a Development Review Permit to allow for the construction of the new structures as the overall square footage of the project is in excess of 25,000 square feet. Approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map is required for the subdivision of the property into twenty units. The applicant is also requesting a Variance to allow the second and third floor parcel coverages to exceed the limits set forth by the Municipal Code. The separation of the three buildings reduces the scale of the project, and the openings into the courtyard along with the additional upper level building stepbacks along Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard provide for an articulated project compatible with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood. Garden terraces and open balconies along both street frontages create a pedestrian environment that relate harmoniously to the surrounding residential neighborhood, and extensive landscaping throughout the project also contributes to the residential scale of the surrounding area. The curved triangular shape of the subject property is unique to other standard rectilinear-shaped properties in the general area. The requirements for additional building articulation and stepbacks along the street necessitates the reallocation of parcel coverage elsewhere on the property while maintaining the project's compatibility in mass and scale to adjacent existing residential buildings. The reduced fourth story footprint and lower building height along San Vicente Boulevard allows for a project that appropriately transitions in height between the adjacent residential buildings. Prepared by: Tony Kim, Senior Planner Bradley J. Misner, Principal Planner Attachments A. General Plan and Municipal Code Compliance Worksheet B. Draft Statement of Official Action C. Public Notification D. Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program E. Public Comment Letters F. Mitigated Negative Declaration G. Project Plans, Tract Map and Photographs F:\CityPlanning\Share\PC\STRPT\2010\10DR001 10TM002 10VAR008 (301 Ocean Ave).doc 10 ATTACHMENT A GENERAL PLAN AND MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE WORKSHEET Location and Permit Processina Time Limits Project Address: Application Filing Date CEQA Deadline: Subdivision Deadline: PSA Deadline: Total Process Review Time (Days): 301 Ocean Avenue April 20, 2010 October 17, 2010 October 7, 2010 October 17, 2010 120 days General Plan and Municipal Code Comaliance Worksheet ,. CA'CEGORY ~~ :~ LAND USE ,. ". ". ,,` ~ :.. r ELEMENT .. " MUNICIPAL CODE a ,.. PR4}JECT ' w.: . Permitted Use --- Multi-family dwelling units. Multi-family dwelling units. [SMMC Sect. 9.04.08.06.020] Dwelling Units --- 1 dwelling unit/900 SF 20 units. parcel area 43,814 SF/900 SF = 49 units allowed [SMMC Sect. 9.04.08.06.060] Height of Building --- 4 stories 4 stories. [SMMC Sect. 9.04.08.06.060] 45 feet. The building 45 feet. volume above 40 feet shall 27,069 CU. FT. above 40 not exceed fifty percent of feet. the parcel coverage immediately below the 40- foot height elevation, multiplied by five. 50% of 10,954 SF = 5,477 SF 5,477 SF x 5' = 27,385 CU. FT. allowed [SMMC Sect. 9.04.08.06.060(b)(3)] Setbacks Frontyard N/A 20 feet 20 feet. Sideyard 8 feet 8 feet. Rear Yard 15 feet (From alley centerline) 15 feet (from alley centerline). [SMMC Sect. 9.04,08.06.060] Additional Front 5 feet for at least 25% of Minimum 5 feet provided Setback width of front fa ade for at least 25% of width 11 Attachment A General Plan & Municipal Code Compliance Worksheet [SMMC Sect. 9.04.08.06.070(b)] of front fagade. Additional Side 2-foot average sideyard Minimum 2-foot average Setback setback sideyard setback SMMC Sec[. 9.04.08.06.070 provided. Building Volume N/A Nine-foot average setback Minimum nine-foot average Envelope required between 31' and setback required between 45' 31' and 45' provided. [SMMC Sect. 9.04.10.02.040] Lot Coverage First Story N!A 50% 49% Second Story 80% of 1s` Story MPC 88% of 1s1 Story MPC Third Story 60% of 1~t Story MPC 68% of 1~t Story MPC Fourth Story 50% of 1~t Story MPC 35% of 1st Story MPC [SMMC Sect. s.oa.o6.os.oso] The applicant has requested a Variance to allow the second and third story parcel coverages to exceed the limits set forth b the Munici al Code. Parking Access Alley access is Alley access is required Alley access provided from encouraged when alley exists. First Court alley. when alley [SMMC Sect. 9.04.10.08.080] exists. Parking Space Number N/A 42 total parking spaces 43 total parking spaces required. provided. Two-bedroom units deed restricted for moderate income: 1.5 spaces per unit = 5 units x 1.8 = 8 spaces One or more bedroom condominium units: 2 spaces per unit = 15 units x 2 = 30 spaces 1 visitor space per 5 units = 20 / 5 = 4 spaces [SMMC Sect. 9.04.10.08.040] Trash Area N/A Refuse and recycling room 605 SF refuse and measuring 129 SF in area. recycling room provided. [SMMC Sec[. 9.04.10.02.151(b)(4)] Mechanical Equipment Mechanical equipment Roof mechanical Screening N/A extending more than 12" equipment screened. above roof parapet shall be fully screened from a horizontal plane. [SMMC Sect. 9.04.10.02.140] 12 Attachment A General Plan & Municipal Code Compliance Worksheet Location of Mechanical N/A Not permitted on side of Mechanical equipment Equipment building if adjacent to a located on roof and in residential building on an subterranean areas. adjoining lot. ` [SMMC Sect 4.72.130] Frontyard Landscaping NIA Minimum of fifty percent of Minimum of fifty percent of the required front yard required front yard setback setback shall be landscaped. landscaped. [SMMC Sect. 9.04.70.04.060(x)] Sideyard Landscaping N/A Minimum of fifty percent of Minimum of fifty percent of required side yard setbacks required side yard setbacks shall be landscaped. landscaped. [SMMC Sect. 9.04.70.04.060(x)] Unexcavated Sideyard N/A Four feetin width along the Unexcavated area at least required side yards along four feet in width along the the entire length of both required side yards along side property lines. the entire length of both [SMMC Sect. 9.04.10.02.170(x)(1)] side property lines will be provided. Unexcavated Frontyard N/A Equal in area to at least Unexcavated area at least fifty percent of the required fifty percent of the required front yard. front yard provided. [SMMC Sect. 9.04.10.02.170(x)(1)] Private Open Space N/A 50 SF/unit. Minimum 50 SF/unit [SMMC sect. s.oa.o6.os.oso] provided. Inclusionary Units/Fees Residential ownership 25% of the total residential projects of sixteen or more units will be deed-restricted units in multi-family districts as affordable ownership required to provide at least units to qualifying 25% of the total units as moderate-income ownership units for households. moderate-income households. SMMC Sect. 9.56.050 b 13 Attachment A General Plan & Municipal Code Compliance Worksheet ATTACHMENT B DRAFT STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION PROJECT INFORMATION CASE NUMBERS: Development Review Permit 10-001, Tract Map 10-002, Variance 10-008 LOCATION: 301 Ocean Avenue APPLICANT: 301 Ocean Development LLC PROPERTY OWNER: 301 Ocean Development LLC CASE PLANNER: Tony Kim, Senior Planner REQUEST: Development Review Permit (10DR-001) to construct a new three and four-story, 20-unit condominium complex consisting of three buildings oriented around a central courtyard with -two levels of subterranean parking; Vesting Tentative Tract Map 10TM-002 (VTTM No. 71268) to subdivide one lot into twenty airspace parcels in conjunction with a proposed twenty-unit residential condominium development pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.20.04.030; and Variance (10VAR008) to allow the second and third floor parcel coverages to exceed the limits set forth by the Municipal Code. CEQA STATUS: An Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and adopted by the Planning Commission on August 4, 2010. A Notice of Intent for the Draft IS/MND was posted fora 30-day public comment period. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 10-010 (Planning Commission Series) on August 4, 2010 making the necessary findings to approve the project and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. 14 Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION August 18, 2010 X Determination Date Approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions below. Denied. Other: EFFECTIVE DATES OF ACTIONS IF NOT APPEALED: September 2, 2010 (Development Review Permit and Variance) August 29, 2010 (Vesting Tentative Tract Ma EXPIRATION DATE OF ANY PERMITS March 2, 2012 (Development Review GRANTED: Permit and Variance) August 29, 2012 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE 12 months (Development Review Permit EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES*: and Variance) Maximum three (3) years with Planning Commission approval (Vesting Tentative Tract Ma ) Any request for an extension of the expiration date must be received in the City Planning Division prior to expiration of this permit. 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: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS 1. The physical location, size, massing, and placement of proposed structures on the site and the location of proposed uses within the project are compatible with and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods, in that the proposed condominium project will consist of three separate buildings located around a central courtyard that will be accessible from both Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. The separation of the three buildings reduces the scale of the project, and the openings into the courtyard along with the additional upper level building stepbacks along Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard provide for ah articulated project compatible with the surrounding buildings in the 15 Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action neighborhood. While the development standards for the R4 district allow for four- story buildings, the building located along San Vicente Boulevard will consist of three stories. The reduced fourth story footprint and lower building height along San Vicente Boulevard allows for a project that appropriately transitions in height between the adjacent residential buildings. Garden terraces and open balconies along both street frontages create a pedestrian environment that relate harmoniously to the surrounding residential neighborhood, and extensive landscaping throughout the project also contributes to the residential scale of the surrounding area. In addition, the Spanish Revival style of the project utilizing white plaster and the work fits into the eclectic design styles of the surrounding residential buildings and reflects upon older Spanish courtyard homes found throughout the City. 2. The rights-of-way can accommodate autos and pedestrians, including parking and access, in that the project site is located along Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard which provide vehicular and pedestrian access to the site. In addition, access to the site and the subterranean parking is available for autos and pedestrians from First Court alley. 43 parking spaces will be provided in the subterranean garage including four guest parking spaces. 3. The health and safety services (police, fire, etc.) and public infrastructure (e.g. utilities) are sufficient to accommodate the new development, in that the subject property is located within a developed urbanized environment that is adequately served by existing health and safety services, infrastructure, and public utilities and services. The proposed 20-unit project will- replace an existing 47-unit building and is not anticipated to create a need for additional utilities or services. 4. The project is generally consistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan, in that except for the Variance request for the additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors, all other aspects of the project will be designed to meet the development standards within the Municipal Code. Objective 1.10 of the Land Use Element calls for expanding the opportunity for residential land use while protecting .the scale and character of existing neighborhoods. Policy 1.10.1 encourages the development of new housing in all residential districts while still protecting the character and scale of neighborhoods. The proposed project will provide twenty residential units of which five will be affordable housing units for qualified moderate-income households. Reduced parcel coverage on the fourth floor will create a project that is more compatible in scale and character with the existing surrounding neighborhood. The provision of an expansive central courtyard accessible from both Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard along with upper level building stepbacks will provide for an articulated project compatible with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood and allow for a project that appropriately transitions in height between the adjacent residential buildings. 16 Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action 5. Reasonable mitigation measures have been included for all adverse impacts identified in the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, in that a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is required for projects that require changes or adopt mitigation measures to avoid significant environmental effects. The primary purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the Final MND are implemented, thereby minimizing identified environmental effects. The proposed MMRP includes identification of the method of verification of compliance, the timing during which the measure should be implemented, the frequency of the monitoring, and the enforcement/ monitoring/reporting agency. Mitigation measures related to construction effects, neighborhood effects, and noise have been incorporated into the MMRP to ensure that there will be no significant impacts upon the environment. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FINDINGS 1. The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Government Code Section 65451. Specifically, while the subject property is not located in an area governed by a specific plan as specified in .Government Code Section 65451, compliance with the City's General Plan is required: For the purpose of subdividing the subject parcel, there are two pertinent policies that must be evaluated with the map; those policies relate to building height and unit density. As noted and shown on the subject map, the project complies with applicable policies, including unit density and height standards for the subject land use designation. 2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Specifically, while the subject property is not located in an area governed. by a specific plan, compliance with the City's General Plan is required. As noted and shown on the subject map, the proposed improvements will not exceed land use designation limits to building height and unit density, 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. Specifically, the subject parcel is a standard-sized parcel located within an urbanized area adequately served by existing roadways and infrastructure. The property is physically able to accommodate the proposed development. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Specifically, the subject parcel is a standard-sized parcel located within an urbanized area adequately served by existing roadways and infrastructure. Moreover the type of development and unit density is consistent with policies set forth in the City's General Plan and other improvements in the general vicinity. 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, in that the proposed subdivision is located in an 17 Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action urbanized area that does not contain habitats or would otherwise injure fish and wildlife. 6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The proposed subdivision is for a property located in an urbanized area and is consistent with other similar improvements in the area. As noted and shown on the map, the project complies with height and unit density limitations set forth in the General Plan. The subdivision of the parcel does not have the potential to disrupt the urban environment or otherwise cause serious public health problems. 7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision in that there are no public easements located within the proposed subdivision. 8. The proposed subdivision is consistent with any ordinance or law of the City of Santa Monica. Specifically, the project has demonstrated compliance with applicable unit density and height limitations set forth in the underlying land use designation. Moreover, as conditioned, the project must comply with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, which will be comprehensively evaluated during the City's plan check review process, prior to issuance of a building permit. VARIANCE FINDINGS 1. There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification. Specifically, the curved triangular shape of the subject property is unique to other standard rectilinear-shaped properties in the general area. The front of the property is located along Ocean Avenue while the large curved expanse along San Vicente Boulevard is considered a side of the property. The requirements for additional building articulation and stepbacks along the street necessitates the reallocation of parcel coverage elsewhere on the property while maintaining the project's compatibility in mass and scale to adjacent existing residential buildings. 2. The granting of such variance will not be detrimental nor injurious to the property or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located in that the additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors would result in reduced parcel coverage on the fourth floor creating a project that is more compatible in mass and scale with the surrounding buildings and uses. The additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors would result in a decreased fourth floor footprint allowing the fourth floor to be located further setback from the street and thereby reducing the visible mass and scale of the 18 Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action project. The provision of an expansive central courtyard accessible from both Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard would not be affected by the additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors. The courtyard and the upper level building stepbacks provide for an articulated project compatible with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood and allow for a project that appropriately transitions in height between the adjacent residential buildings. 3. The strict application of the provisions of this Chapter would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, not including economic difficulties or economic hardships in that that due to existing parcel constraints and the placement of adjacent uses, practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships would result in attempting to create a project compatible in mass and scale to existing two and three story buildings in the general area. The curved triangle shape of the parcel and large expanse of the side elevation along San Vicente Boulevard requires additional building articulation and stepbacks along the street and thereby necessitating the reallocation of parcel coverage elsewhere on the property. The strict application of the parcel coverage limits on the second and third floor would result in increased building mass on the fourth floor resulting in a project design that is incompatible with the neighborhood in terms of mass and scale and would not adequately transition in height with the surrounding buildings. 4. The granting of a variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter, nor to the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. Specifically, Objective 1.10 calls for expanding the opportunity for residential land use while protecting the scale and character of existing neighborhoods. Policy 1.10.1 encourages the development of new housing in all residential districts while still protecting the character and scale of neighborhoods. The granting of a variance to allow the second and third floor parcel coverages to exceed the limits set forth by the Municipal Code would result in reduced parcel coverage on the fourth floor creating a project that is more compatible in scale and character with the existing surrounding neighborhood. The provision of an expansive central courtyard accessible from both Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard would not be affected by the additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors. The courtyard and the upper level building stepbacks provide for an articulated project compatible with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood and allow for a project that appropriately transitions in height between the adjacent residential buildings. 5. The variance would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be located in that the additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors would result in reduced parcel coverage on the fourth floor creating a project that is more compatible in mass and scale with the surrounding buildings and uses. The district in which the subject project is located includes building ranging between two stories in height to multi-story high-rise towers. The additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors would result in a 19 Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action decreased fourth floor footprint allowing the fourth floor to be located further setback from the street and thereby reducing the visible mass and scale of the project. The provision of an expansive central courtyard accessible from both Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard would not be affected by the additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors. The courtyard and the upper level building stepbacks provide for an articulated project compatible with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood and allow for a project that appropriately transitions in height between the adjacent residential buildings. 6. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance in that the subject parcel is a standard-sized parcel located within an urbanized area adequately served by existing roadways and infrastructure. The property is physically able to accommodate the proposed development with the additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors while still providing enough space for a central courtyard and adequate setbacks. The property is relatively level and has been previously developed with a 47-unit apartment complex. 7. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed variance would not be detrimental to public health and safety in that the subject property is located within a developed urbanized environment that is adequately served by existing infrastructure, public utilities and services. The property has been previously developed with a 47-unit apartment complex, and it is not anticipated that approval of the subject application fora 20-unit complex with additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors will create a need for additional utilities or services. 8. There will be adequate provisions for public access to serve the subject variance proposal in that adequate pedestrian and vehicular access will be available from Ocean Avenue, San Vicente Boulevard, and First Court alley. Bus stops are also located within close proximity to the subject site. 9. The strict application of the provisions of this Chapter would result in unreasonable deprivation of the use or enjoyment of the property in that due to existing parcel constraints and the placement of adjacent uses, practical use or enjoyment of the subject parcel would not be possible. The curved triangle shape of the parcel and large expanse of the side elevation along San Vicente Boulevard requires additional building articulation and stepbacks along the street and thereby necessitating the reallocation of parcel coverage elsewhere on the property. The strict application of the parcel coverage limits on the second and third floor would result in increased building mass on the fourth floor resulting in a project design that is not compatible in mass and scale to the surrounding neighborhood and would affect the viability of the subject project. 20 Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Administrative 1. The Planning Commission's approval, conditions of approval, or denial of this application may be appealed to the City Council if the appeal is filed with the Zoning Administrator within fourteen consecutive days following the date of the Planning Commission's determination in the manner provided in Part 9.04.20.24, Sections 9.04.20.24.010 through 9.04.20.24.040. An appeal of the approval, conditions of approval, or denial of a subdivision map must be filed with the City Clerk within ten consecutive days following the date of Planning Commission determination in the manner provided in Part 9.20.14, Section 9.20.14.070. Any appeal must be made in the form required by the Zoning Administrator. The approval of this permit shall expire if the rights granted are not exercised within one year from the permit's effective date. Exercise of rights shall mean issuance of a building permit to commence construction. 2. Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.04.10.02.450(d), if the Building Official determines that another building permit has been issued less than fifteen months prior to the date on which the building permit for this project has received all plan check approvals and none of the relevant exceptions specified in 9.04.10.02.450(c) and (e) apply, the Building Official shall place the project on a waiting list in order of the date and time of day that the permit application received all plan check approvals, and the term of this approval and other City approvals or permits necessary to commence the project shall be automatically extended by the amount of time that a project remains on the waiting list. However, the permit shall also expire if the building permit expires, if final inspection is not completed or a Certificate of Occupancy is not issued within the time periods specified in SMMC Section 8.08.060. One one-year extension may be permitted if approved by the Director of Planning. Applicant is on notice that time extensions shall not be granted if development standards or the development process relevant to the project have changed since project approval. Extension requests to a subdivision map must be approved by the Planning Commission. 3. The tentative map shall expire 24 months after approval, except as provided in the provisions of California Government Code Section 66452.6 and Subchapter 9.20.18 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. During this time period the final map shall be presented to the City of Santa Monica for approval. No building permit for the project will be granted until such time as the final map is approved by the Santa Monica City Council 4. Within ten days of City Planning Division transmittal of the Statement of Official Action, project applicant shall sign and return a copy of the Statement of Official Action prepared by the City Planning Division, agreeing to the conditions of 21 Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action approval and acknowledging that failure to comply with such conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval. By signing same, applicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights applicant may possess regarding said conditions. The signed Statement shall be returned to the City Planning Division. Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute grounds for potential permit revocation. 5. Within thirty (30) days after final approval of the project, a sign shall be posted on site stating the date and nature of the approval. The sign shall be posted in accordance with the Zoning Administrator guidelines and shall remain in place until a building permit is issued for the project. The sign shall be removed promptly when a building permit is issued for the project or upon expiration of the Design Compatibility Permit. 6. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied. 7. Applicant. is advised that projects in the California Coastal Zone may need approval of the California Coastal Commission prior to issuance of any building permits by the City of Santa Monica. Applicant is responsible for obtaining any such permits. Conformance with Approved Plans 8. This approval is for those plans dated August 4, 2010, a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the City Planning Division. Project development shall be consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval 9. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. A significant change in the approved concept shall be subject to Planning Commission Review. Construction shall be in conformance with the plans submitted or as modified by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board or Director of Planning. 10. Project plans shall be subject to complete Code Compliance review when the building plans are submitted for plan check and shall comply with all applicable provisions of Article IX of the Municipal Code and all other pertinent ordinances and General Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica prior to building permit issuance. Affordable Housing Obligation 11. Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter 9.56, the project is subject to the City's Affordable Housing Production Program which requires the 22 Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action proposed 20-unit condominium development to provide twenty-five (25) percent of the units affordable to moderate income households on-site or five (5) units. The applicant will satisfy this affordable housing obligation by providing five (5) two-bedroom moderate income on-site ownership units pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.050(b). Prioritization of potential occupants of the affordable housing unit(s) shall be in accordance with the Affordable Housing Production Program Ordinance Guidelines. Fees 12. A Park and Recreation Facilities Tax of $200.00 per residential unit shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of a building. permit for the construction or placement of the residential unit(s) on the subject lot, per and subject to the provisions of Section 6.80.010 et seq. of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. 13. Prior to issuance of a condominium license, the developer shall provide for the payment of a Condominium Tax of $1,000 per planned salable unit pursuant to Chapter 6.76 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. 14. No building permit shall be issued for the project until the developer complies with the requirements of Part 9.04.10.20 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, Private Developer Cultural Arts Requirement. If the developer elects to comply with these requirements by providing on-site public art work or cultural facilities, no final City approval shall be granted until such time as the Director of the Community and Cultural Services Department issues a notice of compliance in accordance with Part 9.04.10.20. 15. No building permit shall be issued for the project until the. developer complies with the requirements of Chapter 9.72 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, the Child Care Linkage Program. Mitigation Monitoring Program 16. Pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Planning Division will coordinate a monitoring and reporting program regarding any required changes to the project made in conjunction with project approval and any conditions of approval, including those conditions intended to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. This program shall include, but is not limited to, ensuring that the City Planning Division itself and other City divisions and departments such as the Building and Safety Division, the Department of Environmental and Public Works, the Fire Department; the Police Department, the Planning and Community Development Department and the Finance Department are aware of project requirements which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a Building Permit, Certificate of Occupancy, or other permit, and that other responsible agencies are also informed of conditions 23 Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action relating to their responsibilities. Project owner shall demonstrate compliance with conditions of approval in a written report submitted to the Planning Director and Building Officer prior to issuance of a Building Permit or Certificate of Occupancy, and, as applicable, provide periodic reports regarding compliance with such conditions. Construction Effects • Construction Impact Mitigation Plan. The applicant shall prepare, implement, and maintain a Construction Impact Mitigation Plan which shall be designed to: • Prevent material traffic impact on the surrounding roadway network. • Minimize parking impacts both to public parking and access to private parking to the greatest extent practicable. • Ensure safety for both those constructing the project and surrounding community. • Prevent substantial truck traffic through residential neighborhoods. The Construction Impact Mitigation Plan shall be subject to review and approval by the following City departments: Public Works Department, Fire, Planning and Community Development, and Police to ensure that the Plan has been designed in accordance with this Mitigation Measure. This review shall occur prior to commencement of any construction staging for the project. I shall at a minimum include the following: • Ongoing Requirements Throughout the Duration of Construction o A detailed traffic control plan for work zones shall be maintained. At a minimum, this shall include: parking and travel lane configuration; warning, regulatory, .guide, and directional signage; and area sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and parking lanes. The plan shall include specific information regarding the projects construction activities that may disrupt normal pedestrian and traffic flow and the measures to address these disruptions. Such plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Transportation Management Division prior to commencement of construction and implemented in accordance with this approval. o .Work within the public right-of-way shall be performed between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. This work included dirt and demolition materials hauling and construction material delivery. Work within the public right-of-way outside of these hours shall only be allowed after the issuance of an after- . hours construction permit. o Streets and equipment shall be cleaned in accordance with established PW requirements: o Trucks shall only travel on aCity-approved construction route. Truck queing/staging shall not be allowed on Santa Monica streets. Limited queing may occur on the construction site itself. 24 Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action o Materials and equipment shall be minimally visible to the public; the preferred location for materials is to be onsite, with a minimum amount of materials within a work area in the public right-of-way, subject to current Use of Public Property Permit. o Any requests for work before or after normal construction hours with the public right-of-way shall be subject to review and approval through the After Hours Permit process administered by the Building and Safety Division. o Provision of off-street parking for construction workers, which may include the use of a remote location with shuttle transport to the site, if determined necessary by the City of Santa Monica. • Project Coordination Elements That Shall Be Implemented Prior to Commencement of Construction o The applicant shall advise the traveling public of impending construction activities (e.g., information signs, portable message signs, media listing/information, and implementation of ah approved traffic control plan). o .The applicant shall obtain a Use of Private Property Permit, Excavation Permit, Sewer Permit, or Oversize Load Permit, as well as Caltrans Permits required, for any construction work requiring encroachment into public right-of-way, detours, or any other work within the public right-of-way. o The applicant shall provide timely notification of construction schedules to all affected agencies (e.g., Big Blue Bus, Police Department, Fire Department, Public Works Department, and Planning and Community Development Department) and to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property within a radius of 500 feet. o The applicant shall coordinate construction work with affected agencies in advance of start of work. Approvals may take up to two weeks per each submittal. o The applicant shall. obtain Transportation Management Division approval of any haul routes for earth, concrete, or construction materials and equipment hauling. Diesel Equipment Mufflers. All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory recommended mufflers. Electrically-Powered Tools. Electrically powered tools shall be used to run air compressors and similar powered tools. Restrictions on Excavation and Foundation/Conditioning. Excavation, foundation-laying, and conditioning activities (the noisiest phases of construction) shall be restricted to between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, in accordance with Section 4.12.110(d) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. 25 Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action • Additional Noise Attenuation Techniques. For all noise-generating construction activity on the project site, additional noise attenuation techniques shall be employed as necessary to reduce noise levels to City of Santa Monica noise standards. Such techniques may include the use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment and the construction of temporary sound barriers between construction sites and nearby sensitive receptors. • Construction Sign Posting. In accordance with Municipal Code Section 4.12.120, the project applicant shall post a sign informing all workers and subcontractors of the time restrictions for construction activities. The sign shall also include the City telephone numbers where violations can be reported and complaints associated with construction noise can be submitted. Cultural Resources 17. If any archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation or construction, work in the affected area shall be suspended and a recognized specialist shall be contacted to conduct a survey of the affected area at project's owner's expense. A determination shall then be made by the Director of Planning to determine the significance of the survey findings and appropriate actions and requirements, if any, to address such findings. CC&Rs 18. Prior to issuance of building permits, Condominium Association By-Laws and a Declaration of CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The CC&R's shall contain anon-discrimination clause as presented in SMMC Section 9.20.20.020 and such provisions as are required by SMMC Section 9.04.16.01.030(d) and (e). Project Operations 19. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or other actions. 20. The project shall at all times comply with the provisions of the Noise Ordinance (SMMC Chapter 4.12). Final Design 21. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash enclosures, and signage shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Board. 26 Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action 22. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the project's pedestrian orientation and amenities; scale and articulation of design elements; exterior colors, textures and materials; window treatment; glazing; and landscaping. 23. The existing mature trees shall be preserved in their present location on site, relocated to a specific location on site or replaced with specimen trees to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board. 24. In addition to other landscaping requirements, the Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall ensure that at least 50% of the unexcavated side yard setback area (s) shall be adequately landscaped. 25. Landscaping plans shall comply with Subchapter 9.04.10.04 (Landscaping Standards) of the Zoning Ordinance including use of water-conserving landscaping materials, landscape maintenance and other standards contained in the Subchapter. 26. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall be screened in accordance with SMMC Section 9.04.10.02.130, 140, and 150. Refuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site need, including recycling. The Architectural Review Board in its review shall pay particular attention to the screening of such areas and equipment. Any rooftop mechanical equipment shall be minimized in height and area, and shall be located in such a way as to minimize noise and visual impacts to surrounding properties. Unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Board, rooftop mechanical equipment shall be located at least five feet from the edge of the roof. Except for solar hot water heaters, no residential water heaters shall be located on the roof. 27. No gas. or electric meters shall be located within the required front or street side yard setback areas. The Architectural Review Board in its review shall pay particular attention to the location and screening of such meters. 28. Prior to consideration of the project by the Architectural Review Board, the applicant shall review disabled access requirements with the Building and Safety Division and make any necessary changes in the project design to achieve compliance with such requirements. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the aesthetic, landscaping, and setback impacts of any ramps or other features necessitated by accessibility requirements. 29. As appropriate, the Architectural Review Board shall require the use of anti- graffiti materials on surfaces likely to attract graffiti. 27 Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action Construction Plan Requirements 30. Final building plans submitted for approval of a building permit shall include on the plans a list of all permanent mechanical equipment to be placed indoors which may be heard outdoors. Demolition Requirements 31. Until such time as the demolition is undertaken, and unless the structure is currently in use, the existing structure shall be maintained and secured by boarding up all openings, erecting a security fence, and removing all debris, bushes and planting that inhibit the easy surveillance of the property to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Officer and the Fire Department. Any landscaping material remaining shall be watered and maintained until demolition occurs. 32. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, applicant shall prepare for Building Division approval a rodent and pest control plan to insure that demolition and construction activities at the site do not create pest control impacts on the project neighborhood. Construction Period 33. Immediately after demolition and during construction, a security fence, the height of which shall be the maximum permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained around the perimeter of the lot. The lot shall be kept clear of all trash, weeds, eta 34. Vehicles hauling dirt or other construction debris from the site shall cover any open load with a tarpaulin or other secure covering to minimize dust emissions. Immediately after commencing dirt removal from the site, the general contractor shall provide the City of Santa Monica with written certification that all trucks leaving the site are covered in accordance with this condition of approval. 35. Developer shall prepare a notice, subject to the review by the Director of Planning and Community Development, that lists all construction mitigation requirements, permitted hours of construction, and identifies a contact person at City Hall as well as the developer who will respond to complaints related to the proposed construction. The notice shall be mailed- to property owners and residents within a 200-foot radius from the subject site at least five (5) days prior to the start of construction. 36. A sign shall be posted on the property in a manner consistent with the public hearing sign requirements which shall identify the address and phone number of the owner and/or applicant for the purposes of responding to questions and 28 Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action complaints during the construction period. Said sign shall also indicate the hours of permissible construction work. 37. A copy of these conditions shall be posted in an easily visible and accessible location at all times during construction at the project site. The pages shall be laminated or otherwise protected to ensure durability of the copy. Standard Conditions 38. Lofts or mezzanines shall not exceed 33.3% of the room below unless compliance with the district's limits on number of stories can be maintained. Lofts or mezzanines located in studio units shall not exceed 99 square feet unless parking in compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements is provided. 39. No fence, gate, or wall within the required front yard setback, inclusive of any subterranean garage slab and fencing, gate, or railing on top thereof, shall exceed a height of 42" above actual grade of the property. 40. Mechanical equipment shall not be located on the side of any building which is adjacent to a residential building on the adjoining lot, unless otherwise permitted by applicable regulations. Roof locations may be used when the mechanical equipment is installed within asound-rated parapet enclosure. 41. Final approval of any mechanical equipment installation will require a noise test in compliance with SMMC Section 4.12.040. Equipment for the test shall be provided by the owner or contractor and the test shall be conducted by the owner or contractor. A copy of the noise test results on mechanical equipment shall be submitted to the Community Noise Officer for review to ensure that noise levels do not exceed maximum allowable levels for the applicable noise zone. 42. Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be subject to the review and approval of the Transportation Management Division. 43. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a copy of the recorded map shall be provided to the City Planning Division. 44. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Subchapter 9.04.16 Condominiums. 45. Construction period signage shall be subject to the approval of the Architectural Review Board. 46. The property owner shall insure any graffiti on the site is promptly removed through compliance with the City's graffiti removal program. 29 Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (PW) Drainage 47. To mitigate storm water and surface runoff from the project site, an Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan may be required by the Department of Public Works pursuant to Municipal -Code Chapter 7.10. Prior to submittal of landscape plans for Architectural Review Board approval, the applicant shall contact Public Works to determine applicable requirements, which include the following: • Non-stormwater runoff, sediment and construction waste from the construction site and parking areas is prohibited from leaving the site; • An sediments or materials which are tracked off-site must be removed the same day they are tracked off-site; • Excavated soil must be located on the site and soil piles should be covered and otherwise protected so that sediments do not go into the street or adjoining properties; • Washing of construction or other vehicles shall be allowed adjacent to a construction site. No runoff from washing vehicles on a construction site shall be allowed to leave the site; • Drainage controls may be required depending on the extent of grading and topography of the site; and • New development is required to reduce projected runoff pollution by at least twenty percent through incorporation of design elements or principles, such as increasing permeable surfaces, diverting or catching runoff via swales, berms, and the like; orientation of drain gutters towards permeable areas; modification of grades; use of retention structures and other methods. 48. Automotive repair facilities and dealerships, parking areas and structures, automotive paint shops, gas stations, equipment degreasing areas, and other facilities generating wastewater with significant oil and grease content are required to pretreat these wastes before discharging to the City sewer or storm drain system. Pretreatment will require that a clarifier or oil/water separator be installed and maintained on site. In cases where settleable solids are present (or expected) in greater amounts than floatable oil and grease, aclarifier-unit will be required. In cases where the opposite waste characteristics are present, an oil/water separator with automatic oil draw-off will be required instead. The Public Works Department will set specific requirements. Building permit plans shall show the required installation. Hazardous Materials 49. Prior to the demolition of any existing structure, the applicant shall submit a report from an industrial hygienist to be reviewed and approved as to content and form by the Public Works /Environmental Programs Division. The report shall 30 Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action consist of a hazardous materials survey for the structure proposed for demolition. The report shall include a section on asbestos and in accordance with the South Coast AQMD Rule 1403, the asbestos survey shall be performed by a state Certified Asbestos Consultant (CAC). The report shall include a section on lead, which shall be performed by a state Certified Lead Inspector/Assessor. Additional hazardous materials to be considered by the industrial hygienist shall include: mercury (in thermostats, switches, fluorescent light); polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (including light Ballast), and fuels, pesticides, and batteries. Streets 50. Unless otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable during the grading and construction phase of the project. 51. Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need replacing or removal as a result of the project as determined by the Department of Public Works shall be reconstructed to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. Approval for this work shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of the building permits. 52. Street and/or alley lighting shall be provided on public rights of way adjacent to the project if and as needed per the specifications and with the approval of the Department of Public Works. Off-site 53. All off site improvements required by the City Engineer shall be installed. Plans and specifications for off site improvements shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer. 54. A subdivision improvement agreement for all off site improvements required by the City Engineer shall be prepared and a performance bond posted through the City Attorney's office. Environmental Mitigation 55. To mitigate solid waste impacts, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, project owner shall submit a recycling plan to the Department of Public Works for its approval. The recycling plan shall include: 1) List of materials such as white paper, computer paper, metal cans, and glass to be recycled; 2) Location of recycling bins; 3) Designated recycling coordinator; 4) Nature and extent of internal and external pick-up service; 31 Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action 5) Pick-up schedule; and 6) Plan to inform tenants/ occupants of service. 56. Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures are required on all new development and remodeling where plumbing is to be added, including dual flush toilets, 1.0 gallon urinals and low flow shower heads. Construction Period Mitigation 57. A construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by the applicant for approval by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit. The approved mitigation plan shall be posted on the site for the duration of the project construction and shall be produced upon request. As applicable, this plan shall:. 1) Specify the names, addresses, telephone numbers and business license numbers of all contractors and subcontractors as well as the developer and architect; 2) Describe how demolition of any existing structures is to be accomplished; 3) Indicate where any cranes are to be located for erection/construction; 4) Describe how much of the public street, alleyway, or sidewalk is proposed to be used in conjunction with construction; 5) Set forth the extent and nature of any pile-driving operations; 6) Describe the length and number of any tiebacks which must extend under the property of other persons; 7) Specify the nature and extent of any dewatering and its effect on any adjacent buildings; 8) Describe anticipated construction-related truck routes, number of truck trips, hours of hauling and parking location; 9) Specify the nature and extent of any helicopter hauling; 10) State whether any construction activity beyond normally permitted hours is proposed; 11) Describe any proposed construction noise mitigation measures, including measures to limit the duration of idling construction trucks; 12) Describe construction-period security measures including any fencing, lighting, and security personnel; 13) Provide a drainage plan; 14) Provide aconstruction-period parking plan which shall minimize use of public streets for parking; 15) List a designated on-site construction manager; 16) Provide a construction materials recycling plan which seeks to maximize the reuse/recycling of construction waste; 17) Provide a plan regarding use of recycled and low-environmental-impact materials in building construction; and 18) Provide a construction period water runoff control plan. 32 Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action Final Map Requirements 58. In submitting required materials to the Santa Monica Civil Engineering and Architecture Division for a final map, applicant shall provide a copy of the approved Statement of Official Action. 59. The form, contents, accompanying data, and filing of the final subdivision map shall conform to the provisions of SMMC Sections 9.20.12.010 through 9.20.08.090 and the Subdivision Map Act. The required Final Map filing fee shall be paid prior to scheduling of the Final Map for City Council approval. 60. One mylar and one blue-line copy of the final map shall be provided to and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder prior to issuance of any building permit fora condominium project pursuant to Government Code Section 66499.30. Applicant shall also provide the County with a copy of this Statement of Official Action at the time the required copies of the map are submitted. 61. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the requirements of Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.10.16.010 (d) shall have been met. Open Space Management 62. Street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as required in a manner consistent with the City's Community Forest Management Plan 2000, per the specifications of the Public Landscape Division of the Community Maintenance Department and the City's Tree Code (SMMC Chapter 7.40). No street trees shall be removed without the approval of the Public Landscape Division. Fire 63. A security gate shall be provided across the opening to the subterranean garage. If any guest parking space is located in the subterranean garage, the security gate shall be equipped with an electronic or other system which will open the gate to provide visitors with vehicular access to the garage without leaving their vehicles. The security gate shall receive approval of the Police and Fire Departments prior to issuance of a building permit. VOTE Ayes: Nays: Abstain: Absent: 33 Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action NOTICE If this is a final decision not subject 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. 1 hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final determination of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica. Hank Koning, FAIA, Chairperson Date Acknowledgement by Permit Holder 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 Applicants Signature Date 34 Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action ATTACHMENT C PUBLIC NOTIFICATION INFORMATION Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.20.080 and in accordance with the posting requirements set forth by the Zoning Administrator, prior to application filing the applicant posted a sign on the property regarding the subject application. At least 8 weeks prior to the public hearing date, the applicant submitted a photograph to verify the site posting and to demonstrate that the sign provides the following information: Project case number, brief project description, name and telephone number of applicant, site address, date, time and location of public hearing, and the City Planning Division phone number. It is the applicant's responsibility to update the hearing date if it is changed after posting. In addition, 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 or 500 foot) radius of the project and published in the Santa Monica Daily Press at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. The applicant provided the following information regarding attempts to contact area property owners, residents, and recognized neighborhood associations: North of Montana Sent mailed notices for community meeting held on January Association 31, 2008 Adjacent Neighbors Sent mailed notices .and conducted a public meeting on January 31, 2008 Community Meetings Held on January 31, 2008 35 Attachment C Public Notification Information NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Development Review Permit 10-001, Tract Map 10-002, Variance 10-008 301 Ocean Avenue APPLICANT: 301 Ocean Development LLC PROPERTY OWNER: 301 Ocean Development LLC A public hearing will be. held by the Planning Commission to consider the following request: Development Review Permit (10DR-001) to construct a new three and four-story, 20-unit condominium complex consisting of three buildings oriented around a central courtyard with two levels of subterranean parking; Vesting Tentative Tract Map 10TM-002 (VTTM No. 71268) to subdivide one lot into twenty airspace parcels in conjunction with a proposed twenty-unit residential condominium development pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.20.04.030; and Variance (10VAR008) to allow the second and third floor parcel coverages to exceed the limits set forth by the Municipal Code. The Planning Commission will be considering a Resolution to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the proposed project. DATE/TIME: WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2010, AT 7:00 PM LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California HOW TO COMMENT The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the Planning Commission public hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the Planning Commission at the meeting. Address your letters to: Tony Kim, Senior Planner Re: 301 Ocean Ave (10DR-001, 10TM-002, 10VAR008) City Planning Division 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 MORE INFORMATION If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project file, please contact Tony Kim at (310) 458-8341, or by a-mail at tonv.kim(~smgov.net. The Zoning Ordinance is available at the Planning Counter during business hours and on the City's web site at www.santa-monida.org. The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations, please contact (310) 458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance. Every attempt will made to provide the requested accommodation. All written materials are available in alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 serve City Hall. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing. ESPANOL Esto es una noticia de una audiencia publics pars revisar applicaci6nes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si deseas mss informaci6n, favor de Ilamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la Division de Planificacibn al numero (310) 458-8341. 36 ATTACHMENT D RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION & MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 37 RESOLUTION N0. 10-010 (PCS) (Planning Commission Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE 301 OCEAN AVENUE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 301 OCEAN AVENUE WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to Adopt an Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 301 Ocean Avenue Condominium Project located at 301 Ocean Avenue was published on May 25, 2010, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines; and, WHEREAS, the Initial Study and Proposed Draft Negative Declaration was made available for public comment for 30-days beginning on May 25, 2010 to June 25, 2010. WHEREAS, on August 18, 2010, the Planning Commission, as Lead City Agency, reviewed the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission finds that the Initial Study identified construction effects, neighborhood effects, noise impacts, and mandatory findings of significance for the project that would have potentially significant impacts but can be reduced to less than significant levels with incorporation of mitigation measures imposed on the project. 38 SECTION 2. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, together with any comments received during the public review process; prior to acting on the project. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission finds, based on the whole record before it, including the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and the comments received, that with incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment, and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. Therefore, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration. SECTION 4. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (a) (1), the Planning Commission adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, which is included as Attachment A, to mitigate or avoid significant effects of the project on the environment and the ensure compliance during project implementation. SECTION 5. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (a) (2), the documents which constitute the record of proceedings for approving this project are located in the Planning and Community Development Department, 1685 Main Street, Room 212, Santa Monica, California. The custodian of these records is Tony Kim, Senior Planner in the City Planning Division of the Planning and Community Development Department. 39 SECTION 6. The Planning Director shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. APPROVED AS TO FORM: MARSHA J. MOUTRIE City Attorney F:\CityPlanning\Share\PC\STRPT\2010\10DR001 PC Reso Adopting MND (301 Ocean).doc 40 ATTACHMENT E PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS 41 ATTACHMENT F MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 42 ATTACHMENT G PROJECT PLANS, TRACT MAP & PHOTOGRAPHS 43 ATTACHMENT D DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, AUGUST 18, 2010 87 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2010 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. ROOM 213, CITY HALL 2. 3. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Pugh led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Jay P. Johnson Hank Koning, FAIA Gerda Newbold Jason Parry Gwynne Pugh, FAIA, ASCE Jim Ries Ted Winterer Also Present: Kyle Ferstead, Commission Secretary Tony Kim, Senior Planner Brad. Misner, AICP, Principal Planner Steve Mizokami, Associate Planner Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney Amanda Schachter, City Planning Manager Roxanne Tanemori, AICP, Senior Planner 3-A. Election of Officers Commissioner Pugh nominated Vice-Chair Ries for Chairperson. Commissioners Newbold and Winterer seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote Commissioner Ries nominated Commissioner Newbold for Vice-Chairperson. Commissioner Winterer seconded the motion, which approved by voice vote. Commissioner Winterer stated for the record that out-going Chair Koning has done an exemplary job of maintaining order and decorum as well as enlivening the proceeding with his "witty wit." City Council Liaison McKeown, on behalf of the City Council, thanked Chair Koning for his service and congratulated Chair Ries on his election. Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010 [The Commission took a break from 8:21 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.] 9-B. Development Review Permit 10-001. Tract Map 10-002 Variance 10-008 301 Ocean Avenue. Development Review Permit (10DR-001) to construct a newthree and four-story 20-unit condominium complex consisting of three buildings oriented around a central courtyard with two levels of subterranean parking' Vesting Tentative Tract Map 10TM-002 (VTTM No 71268) to subdivide one lot into twenty airspace parcels in conjunction with a proposed twenty-unit residential condominium development pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9 20 04 030• and Variance (10VAR008) to allow the second and third floor parcel coverage to exceed the limits set forth by the Municipal Code The Planning Commission will be considering a Resolution to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the proposed project. fPlanner• Tony Kiml APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: 301 Ocean Development LLC. The Commission made the following ex parte communication disclosures: • Commissioner Johnson disclosed that on Friday, August 13, 2010, he had an hour and a half meeting with the architect and developers regarding overall aspects and details of the project, the height ofthe rearstructure, permeability of the site, and internal workings of the project. He also disclosed receiving a telephone call Wednesday, August 18, 2010, from a former Landmarks Commissioner regarding the proposed building design. • Commissioner Parry disclosed he met with the applicant on July 29, 2010, and reviewed the original and current building proposal. • Commissioner Winterer disclosed he met on August 3, 2010, at 11:00 a.m. with the architect and developers in the architect's office. He reviewed the proposal and model last Thursday, August 12, 2010, and had a discussion with Landmarks Commissioner Margaret Bach about the project. • Commissioner Koning disclosed he met with the architect and development team on July 13, 2009 [sic], and discussed the project. He also disclosed a conversation and a-mail exchanges with Landmarks Commissioner Margaret Bach about the project and appropriateness of the project for the site. • Commissioner Pugh disclosed he met with the architect and developer approximately one week ago at his own office and discussed the variances and overall project design. He also disclosed afollow-up conversation with the architect regarding the aesthetics of the design later the same day. • Commissioner Newbold disclosed she met with the developer and architect on Tuesday, July 20, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. and discussed the overall project. • Chair Ries disclosed that on August 3, 2010, at approximately 12:30 p.m. he met with the architect and applicant team for a presentation and discussion of floor area ratios (FAR), heights, densities, permitted density, parking, bicycle parking, and courtyards. Senior Planner Tony Kim gave the staff report. Commissioner Johnson asked about the Applicants request for gone-year extension to the term of the permits. Mr. Kim explained that if the entitlements Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010 expired, the applicant would be allowed to ask for an extension of up to one ye~r the Development Review permit and Variance. Commissioner Johnson commented that this would be until 2014 with an administrative extension pursuant to the Applicant's request. Mr. Kim answered in the affirmative and stated that only one extension is permitted administratively. Commissioner Winterer asked Mr. Kim if he was in attendance at the community meeting sponsored by the applicant. Mr. Kim responded that there were actually two community meetings and he attended one of them. Commissioner Winterer asked for an overview of the community meeting. Mr. Kim stated that the meeting was conducted by the Applicant to answer specific questions about the project. Commissioner Winterer asked if Mr. Kim knew the square footage of the existing building. Mr. Kim stated he did not have the number, but would look for it. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Kim to explain the relationship between this process and the newly adopted Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), specifically if the project falls under the new LUCE and whether it can be compared under the new document. Mr. Kim stated that the current project is subject to the 1984 LUCE as the vesting tentative tract map was deemed complete prior to the adoption of the new LUCE. Commissioner Johnson asked about the proposed rear structure, adjacent to the alley, which is 45-feet high. Mr. Kim stated that under the new LUCE, the base height limitforthe site is 30-feet, howeverthere are provisions to allow residential projects to go to 45-feet in height. Under the 1984 LUCE, the height limit is 50-feet. Commissioner Johnson asked for the heights to the east and fo the south of the site. Mr. Kim stated that the structure to the south is zoned R-4 and structure is four-stories in height. The structure to the east is a two-story building. Commissioner Winterer commented that the proposal is for 20-units with five of them being affordable per the Affordable Housing Production Program [AHPP] Guidelines, then asked how this affects the former tenants. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum explained that the prior tenants do not gain an advantage, however there is a priority list as part of the AHPP for tenants that are displaced due to the Ellis Act. Commissioner Parry asked for the length of eligibility for displaced tenants on the prior list. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that, to the best of his knowledge, the eligibility does not expire and he is not aware of other specifics. Commissioner Newbold noted that the affordable units appear to be strictly for moderate income households and asked Mr. Kim to explain. Mr. Kim stated that multiple options are provided to a developer in terms of compliance with the affordable housing provision ordinance, and the proposal meets Code requirements. Commissioner Newbold asked for confirmation that the developer must provide more moderate income units to meet Code. Mr. Kim responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Newbold asked what constitutes a moderate income level. Ms. Schachter stated it is 100% of median income. Commissioner Koning asked for clarification that there are no traffic impacts per the 9 Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010 environmental review. Mr. Kim answered in the affirmative. Commissioner asked how staff would determine if the project should be redesig neighborhood compatibility. Mr. Kim explained that staff reviews multiple aspe including the style, massing, building height, articulation, and how the proposed structure relates to the existing structures in the area as well as pedestrian orientation. Commissioner Koning asked to amend his ex pane communication disclosure. He disclosed he rode his bicycle by the site on Monday morning, August 16, 2010. The applicant team consisted of Greg Ames with Trammel Crowe; project architect Howard Laks; and attorney Dale Goldsmith. They gave a presentation to the Commission on the proposed development. Commissioner Winterer asked Mr. Laks why he chose a Spanish Revival style design with courtyard. Mr. Laks stated that he looked at various styles and public comment from community meetings in choosing the Spanish Revival style. He further stated that the proposed design is a warmer style and well suited for the site and is compatible with other buildings in the vicinity. He concluded by saying that the proportions of the fenestration are better suited for the corner. Commissioner Koning noted that the affordable units are 850 square feet (sf), then asked for the size of the largest unit. Mr. Laks stated that the fourth floor unit is over 20,OOOsf with a 1900sf basement and storage space. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Laks why he chose Spanish Revival over Streamline Moderne, noting that there are no Spanish Revival buildings on San Vicente Boulevard. Mr. Laks stated that he views the neighborhood as architecturally eclectic with Craftsman, Mediterranean and modern styles. Commissioner Johnson asked if Mr. Laks is aware of any projects that use the Streamline Moderne style. Mr. Laks stated he is unaware of any current projects using that style. Chair Ries stated there are eleven public requests to speak for this item and noted that the Commission's Rules of Order allow a reduction in speaking time to two minutes per speaker. Following a brief discussion, the speaking time stayed at three minutes per speaker. The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Zia Jamali; J. Hummer; John Berley (Landmarks Commission Chair speaking as concerned citizen); Ty Wapato; Dish Taylor; Bobbe Houston; Martin Erck; Bryna Skuro; Margaret Bach (Landmarks Commissioner speaking as concerned citizen); and Jeff DiCicco. One member of the public, Sherry Martini, was not present when her name was called. Mr. Laks, Mr. Ames and Dale Goldsmith spoke in response to the public comment. to Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010 Chair Ries asked Mr. Goldsmith to explain the difference between an environ ~ impact report (EIR) and MND. Mr. Goldsmith stated that an EIR is require ~'1 potential impacts exist that cannot be mitigated. Chair Ries asked if the same ~ materials are reviewed for an EIR and MND. Mr. Goldsmith answered in the affirmative and stated the materials include technical studies to support the environmental document's conclusions. Commissioner Winterer noted that the staff report states that a letter was received during the comment period for the MND from the State Office of Historic Preservation questioning why a full EIR is not being done and a copy of the letter was not contained in the staff report materials. Mr. Goldsmith stated the letter is included in the final MND and staff did respond to that comment, although not required to. Commissioner Koning asked the project's landscape architect, Katherine Spitz, to come forward. He commented on the beautiful landscape plans and renderings, however he noted that the planned space does not allow enough room for the plants to grow. Ms. Spitz stated this issue was raised by the project architect and explained that there is sufficient soil depth and broader space for horizontal root growth, however the landscaping will need to be well maintained and kept trimmed. Commissioner Pugh stated he had asked the architect about this issue, specifically for the soil depth. Ms. Spitz stated that it depends on the box size, but 36-inches in depth is required. Commissioner Koning expressed concern with the trees in the garden courtyard and ponds. He asked if the proposed trees are California Bays and if they will be able to spread out. Ms. Spitz stated that the trees will grow away from the buildings. Commissioner Koning recommended the section be changed by the architect prior to Architectural Review Board (ARB) review. He then asked about the trees proposed for First Court Alley. Ms. Spitz stated that there be hedges along the alley, not full sized trees, and some palm trees which have small root balls. Commissioner Koning suggested that landscaping along the alley should be planted to project the adjacent neighbors, then asked if the upper terrace greenery, as shown in the renderings, is to be kept-up by the unit owners. Ms. Spitz stated that is the assumption although the initially planting may be part of the overall landscaping plan. Commissioner Winterer asked the environmental consultant, Cori Thomas of Rincon Consultants, to come forward. He asked about a notation on page 65 of the MND regarding housing impacts and questioned the removal of 47 .units being replaced with 20 units, none of which are low income units, as a less than significant impact. Ms. Thomas explained that the project was evaluated based on the criteria used for other projects in the City such as supplying affordable housing on-site, therefore, based on the standards criteria, the impact is less than significant. Commissioner Winterer asked how a decrease in density and loss of affordable housing not a detrimental impact. Ms. Thomas stated there are positive benefits with the new structure such as less resource consumption and less traffic impact. Commissioner Parry asked if the City has adopted thresholds of significance for the affordable unit issue. Ms. Thomas stated the thresholds are listed as "a, b, and c" under the population/housing section and they are consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines checklist and used in -City ii Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010 evaluations. Ms. Thomas further stated the first one is "to reduce sub a~itia - population growth in an area either directly, for example by proposing new homes or ~ businesses, or indirectly, for example through extension of roads and other infrastructure." She further stated that because this project is in an already built environment, this project would not trigger that threshold. Ms. Thomas stated that another criteria has to do with decreasing density, but the displacement of 20 units is not substantial as determined by the consultants. Commissioner Parry asked for confirmation that the City does not have a threshold of significance for this issue. Ms. Thomas stated there is no specific number used by the City. Chair Ries commented that he did not see air quality impacts addressed in the report. Ms. Thomas stated this is not included because of the South Coast AQMD Rule #403, which regulates fugitive dust emissions from a variety of sources and are not allowed to exceed a certain volume within a certain distance over a 24-hour average. She commented that it is her firm's practice to recommend this as a mitigation, however as a matter of policy it is now being included as a condition of approval rather than a mitigation if there is no significant impact. Commissioner Winterer asked for a better understanding of the potential historic impacts, which may not be included in a Negative Declaration. He noted that in the appendix documentation there is a diversity of opinion, including that the building would be a contributorto a historic district along the San Vicente Boulevard corridor. He asked Ms. Thomas how this is addressed in the MND. Ms. Thomas stated that the MND analysis is based on the historic reports prepared for the Landmarks Commission process and those reports evaluated the site by itself and the site did not meet the basic criteria as qualifying as a contributing structure or landmark resource. She stated the site was also evaluated as whether it qualified as a contributing structure for a potential historic district. Commissioner Winterer cited page eight of the PCR Assessment dated July 7, 2008, stated that it meets the criteria as a potential contributor, which does not match the other reports. Ms. Thomas stated that the conclusion is based on findings in these reports. Ms. Schachter added that the assessment of the historic resource, specifically this building as a resource, took into account all the reports, public testimony and other factual pieces of information provided in the public process to the ultimate conclusion that this property is not a historic resource. City Council Liaison McKeown commented that in producing the new LUCE, the Landmarks Commission asked for a better definition of a historic resource and the discussion concluded that a building can be an historic resource without being a landmark. Ms. Schachter stated that this project has a vesting tentative map and is not subject to the findings in the new LUCE and was not evaluated in that context. City Council Liaison McKeown noted that there was no adopted definition of an historic resource, then asked if staff assumed that if a building was not a landmark, it was therefore not a historic resource or, prior to the new LUCE, was the evaluation done in a different manner. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that CEQA has a specific definition of historic resource and in the response to comment from the State, response 1.3, went through the specific categories setforth lz Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010 in the Public Resource Code, including assessing whether or not it was a p ~I contributor to a historic district. This is sefforth in Appendix E. City Council Liaison McKeown asked, as the Landmarks Commission Liaison, ifthis property identified in the City's Historic Resource Inventory. Ms. Schachter stated the property was not identified. Commissioner Parry asked staff how the ARB will be evaluating this site given the curve along San Vicente Boulevard with regards to front and side yard setbacks. Mr. Kim stated that the ARB will use their standard findings of approval. Commissioner Parry asked if sideyards are considered differently from front yards. Mr. Kim stated that the ARB reviews all elevations of a proposed building complex and all aspects of exterior design. Commissioner Parry asked about the proposed affordable units and how the AHPP guidelines handle the issue of prior site tenants. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that prior tenants evicted under the Ellis Act have first priority when new units are made available and the Housing' Division administers this program. Commissioner Parry asked if there is any requirement in eitherthe Ellis Act orAHPP guidelines to notify displaced tenants. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated his assumption that there is such a process via the Rent Control records. Commissioner Parry asked if the Commission can modify or add a condition to order the priority for applying for these units. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated this is not in the Commission's purview. Commissioner Johnson commented that he thought the City's Housing Authority only dealt with subsidized units, such as Section 8, then asked if they actually have oversight on all deed restricted affordable units. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the City's Housing Division ensures compliance for deed restricted affordable housing units. Commissioner Newbold asked the consultant if pools are excluded from LEED certification. points. Ryan MacAvoy confirmed that pools are excluded. Commissioner Newbold asked if square footage is looked at. Mr. MacAvoy stated that most projects that come before the Commission are for new construction. LEED for homes involves a calculator based on square footage, so the more square footage, the more points need to be achieved for certification. Chair Ries commented that things such as how the pool is heated and water evaporation would be considered. Mr. MacAvoy stated that all energy use is looked at for all projects. Commissioner Johnson asked staff about traffic egress for the project. Mr. Kim stated that all access for vehicles will be from First CourtAlley and the existing curb cuts on San Vicente Boulevard will be eliminated. He also stated that due to the reduced number of units proposed for the site, traffic impacts will be reduced. Commissioner Johnson asked about the two lane garage entry and its impact on the building across the alley. Mr. Kim stated that staff in the City's Transportation Management Division (TMD) is satisfied with the traffic patterns. Chair Ries closed the public hearing. 13 Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010 ,~~1 Commissioner Johnson commented that he had been skeptical in the past, b fhrs~ K proposed project feels good and he is unable to find any flaws. He further commented that the. Spanish Revival design is good and that the style appears elsewhere in the City. He stated that he is satisfied with the height limit issues as the property abuts parcels zoned R-4. Commissioner Johnson also commented on the reduction in units equating to less traffic and the developer providing affordable units on-site. He concluded his comments by saying he is satisfied the project will try to meet the new LUCE standards and he will support the project. Commissioner Newbold commented favorably on the open space and courtyard design, the "peek-a-boo" views from the street and the overall improvement of removing the curb cuts. She stated while she is saddened by the loss of affordable units, she can still make the variance findings. She concluded by saying the Spanish Revival design is very pretty and an interesting design choice. Commissioner Parry commented on the public speakers objection to the Spanish Revival architectural style, which puzzled him. He expressed concern with the massing of the building along the alley, suggesting the roofline could be broken up. He stated he is thrilled with the developer providing affordable ownership units, which is needed in the community. Commissioner Parry expressed hope thatformer tenants of the building can return to the new building. He concluded by saying he trusts the ARB guidelines for pedestrian friendliness and amenities will be followed, especially for the San Vicente Boulevard curve. Commissioner Pugh commented that the project will likely be approved, however he sees it as a lost opportunity. He stated that the developer is afraid of creating daring architecture and he does not feel the design is appropriate for a gateway building. He expressed the hope that the design team will reconsider their design prior to ARB review and make it a landmark building. Commissioner Koning expressed agreement with Commissioner Pugh. He stated that the design has an elitist feel and needs more connectivity with the neighborhood. He expressed concern about the alley landscaping, which should act as a filter between the project and adjacent buildings. He commented that the proposed project probably has the same number of bedrooms in .total as the existing building. Commissioner Winterer stated he also feels conflicted about this project, although the developer has been very responsive and has created a compatible footprint which is more inviting and open. He further stated that a clear effort has been made to create a project with impeccable quality. He commented that the under-grounding of the utilities is great, but he is sad about the Ellis Act evictions of the long-term tenants. He concluded his remarks by saying he agrees with other Commissioners that the site is a missed opportunity in terms of design. Chair Ries requested of staff, for future presentations and in staff reports, to include adjacent building heights for project's that have design compatibility requirements and whether they are gaining or losing floor area ratio (FAR). He stated he would 14 Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010 f like to see Rule 403 used more as a standard either in the MND or as a cond rof~,`~- approval, since it a requirement of the SC-AQMD. He commented on the overall loss of density in the City, but noted that the project in question is not transit adjacent, so density is not as important an issue as it might be. Chair Ries commented that he likes the breaking up of the building's massing with three buildings, but he would like to see more. landscaping especially on the eastern, alley side. He also commented he would have liked to have more or better views into the interior courtyards from the public right-of-way. He compared the proposed project to the newly adopted LUCE standards and the need to soften the rear building, perhaps by adding more landscaping. He suggested some options, including making the courtyard smaller or reducing the front and side setbacks along the street, which are not good trade-offs. Chair Ries encouraged the architect to consider such changes. He asked for a condition that more landscaping with height be added prior to the ARB review. Chair Ries stated the Commission is leaning toward continuing the project for redesign or approving with more ARB conditions. Commissioner Pugh stated that design is not in the Commission's purview for a development review permit. He also stated that, for him, the nature of massing was not a negative issue. Commissioner Koning stated that the areas to consider are compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, so design is somewhat in the Commission's purview. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum noted that design and compatibility are in the ARB purview and any decision made at the ARB meeting can be appealed back to the Commission. Commissioner Koning made the motion to certify the MND. Commissioner Pugh seconded the motion. Chair Ries asked if Rule 403 will be included as part of the approval: Ms. Schachter stated it should be a condition of approval. The motion on the MND was approved by the following vote: AYES: Johnson, Koning, Newbold, Parry, Pugh, Ries; NOES: Winterer. Commissioner Koning made a motion to approve the Development Review permit, the Tract Map and the Variance applications. Mr. Kim asked if the motion includes the applicant's request for a three year approval prior to returning to the Commission if more time is needed. Commissioner Koning agreed, to the friendly amendment. Commissioner Johnson asked who is in charge of up-keep for the site and enforcement. Ms. Schachter stated Code Compliance would handle enforcement. Commissioner Newbold asked about the request for three years on the approval. Chair Ries explained that as long as the vesting map is viable, the rules cannot be changed. He stated that the State has stepped into extent the time for tract maps. is Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010 Commissioner Parry asked,' if the time period extension is granted can th` Commission place an additional condition regarding the maintenance of the property including better boarding and securing of the site. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that additional requirements could be added as conditions of approval. Commissioner Pugh recommended a condition regarding keeping the existing landscaping maintained as if the building were functioning as well as keeping the building painted and appearing visibly functional. Mr. Kim cited Condition #31, which addresses maintenance of landscaping and the existing structure. Commissioner Koning asked for confirmation that the existing building cannot be demolished until a building permit is issued. Ms. Schachter answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Koning asked for the logic behind that rule. Ms. Schachter stated the concern is to reduce the number of vacant lots and that some projects receive all approvals, but do not move forward, resulting in derelict properties. She noted that this provision is for residential properties only. Commissioner Parry asked the applicant to comment on the current problems with the existing building. Mr. Ames stated that the building is vacant and has been fenced and boarded up to prevent transients from moving in. He further stated he is working with Code Enforcement on these issues. He commented that he is comfortable with the proposed conditions regarding landscaping and building maintenance. Commissioner Pugh suggested the plywood over the building openings could be painted to draw less attention. Commissioner Pugh seconded the motion to approve the project. City Council Liaison McKeown commented that the City's provision for not allowing residential properties to be demolished prior to the start of construction was to keep current tenants living in the building as long as possible. He stated it is the developer's option on when to evict tenants under the Ellis Act. Commissioner Newbold expressed concern about the tract map approval time line and why the applicant could not just return in two years to request an additional year. Commissioner Winterer stated he support the applications, but not the third year provision. Commissioner Pugh noted that the current economic situation has hit the development community hard. He asked the applicant for his intentions. Mr. Ames stated that the intent is to move forward as soon as the market allows and he is trying to get through the City and State approvals as soon as possible. Commissioner Johnson commented that two years is the regular time line for approval, but the developer is asking for a third year which would routinely be granted. Commissioner Pugh stated the Commission should support the extension request. Commissioner Winterer expressed the opinion that asking for an extension in two years did not seem onerous. Commissioner Johnson noted that the 16 Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010 developer should have waited to Ellis the property. Commissioner Winterer made a substitute motion to approve the Tract Map and Variance without the extension request. Commissioner Newbold seconded the motion. Commissioner Parry asked counsel for the legalities of not extending the Tract Map. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated the Commission has broad discretion on whether to grant a time extension and the rules are based on whether the vesting map is still in effect. The substitute motion was approved by the following vote: AYES: Johnson, Newbold, Parry, Winterer; NOES: Koning, Pugh; ABSTAIN: Ries. Commissioner Pugh made the motion to approve the Development Review permit with the following conditions: "direction to the ARB to review the design for appropriateness for its time and location and, given that this is a gateway building in an area that has a particular aesthetic." Commissioner Koning asked to add a condition that the ARB look at whether the fifteen-foot high gate is appropriate for San Vicente Boulevard and address the landscaping, whether there is adequate provisions for the proposed landscaping and adequate landscaping off the alley (First Court). Commissioner Pugh was agreeable to the conditions. Commissioner Winterer seconded the motion. Commissioner Parry asked for a statement to give special attention to the relationship of the property to the street and along the sideyard. Commissioner Pugh asked if that would be forthe alley or San Vicente Boulevard, noting that they have already addressed San Vicente Boulevard. There was a brief discussion about the San Vicente Boulevard curve. Chair Ries asked to add a condition regarding Rule 403. The motion on the Development Review was approved by the following vote: AYES: Johnson, Koning, Newbold, Parry, Pugh, Ries, Winterer. Commissioner Koning commented that he feels this is a huge missed opportunity as the project is good, but not great. Commissioner Winterer echoed the comments by Commissioner Koning. 9-C. 1800 Stewart Street Development Aareement (10DEV-001) 1800 Stewart Street. A Development Agreement proposal to allow the construction of a 153 655 square foot two and three story buildina with 204 surface level parking spaces for Agensvs, Inc., a biotechnology company to consolidate their research and development office and manufacturing operations into a single site at 1800 Stewart l t +.cr~k{ `~ ~y "Y. S ~~ i~ ATTACHMENT E STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk's office and the Libraries. 1.10 STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FINDINGS: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS 1. The physical location, size, massing, and placement of proposed structures on the site and the location of proposed uses within the project are compatible with and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods, in that the proposed condominium project will consist of three separate buildings located around a central courtyard that will be accessible from both Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. The separation of the three buildings reduces the scale of the project, and the openings into the courtyard along with the additional upper level building stepbacks along Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard provide for an articulated project compatible with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood. While the development standards for the R4 district allow for four- story buildings, the building located along San Vicente Boulevard will consist of three stories. The reduced fourth story footprint and lower building height along San Vicente Boulevard allows for a project that appropriately transitions in height between the adjacent residential buildings. Garden terraces and open balconies along both street frontages create a pedestrian environment that relate harmoniously to the surrounding residential neighborhood, and extensive landscaping throughout the project also contributes to the residential scale of the surrounding area. In addition, the Spanish Revival style of the project utilizing white plaster and the work fits into the eclectic design styles of the surrounding residential buildings and reflects upon older Spanish courtyard homes found throughout the City. 2. The rights-of-way can accommodate autos and pedestrians, including parking and access, in that the project site is located along Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard which provide vehicular and pedestrian access to the site. In addition, access to the site and the subterranean parking is available for autos and pedestrians from First Court alley. 43 parking spaces will be provided in the subterranean garage including four guest parking spaces. 3. The health and safety services (police, fire, etc.) and public infrastructure (e.g. utilities) are sufficient to accommodate the new development, in that the subject property is located within a developed urbanized environment that is adequately served by existing health and safety services, infrastructure, and public utilities and services. The proposed 20-unit project will replace an existing 47-unit building and is not anticipated to create a need for additional utilities or services. 4. The project is generally consistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan, in that except for the Variance request for the additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors, all other aspects of the project will be designed to meet the development standards within the Municipal Code. Objective 1.10 of the. Land Use Element calls for expanding the opportunity for residential land use while protecting the scale and character of existing neighborhoods. Policy 1.10.1 encourages the development of new housing in all residential districts while still protecting the character and scale of neighborhoods. The proposed project will provide twenty residential units of which five will be affordable housing units for qualified moderate-income households. Reduced parcel coverage on the fourth floor will create a project that is more compatible in scale and character with the existing surrounding neighborhood. The provision of an expansive central courtyard accessible from both Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard along with upper level building stepbacks will provide for an articulated project compatible with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood and allow for a project that appropriately transitions in height between the adjacent residential buildings: 5. Reasonable mitigation measures have been included for all adverse impacts identified in the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, in that a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is required for projects that require changes or adopt mitigation measures to avoid significant environmental effects. The primary purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the Final MND are implemented, thereby minimizing identified environmental effects. The proposed MMRP includes identification of the method of verification of compliance, the timing during which the measure should be implemented, the frequency of the monitoring, and the enforcement/ monitoring/reporting agency. Mitigation measures related to construction effects, neighborhood effects, and noise have been incorporated into the MMRP to ensure that there will be no significant impacts upon the environment. VARIANCE FINDINGS 1. There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification. Specifically, the curved triangular shape of the subject property is unique to other standard rectilinear-shaped properties in the general area. The front of the property is located along Ocean Avenue while the large curved expanse along San Vicente Boulevard is considered a side of the property. The requirements for additional building articulation and stepbacks along the street necessitates the reallocation of parcel coverage elsewhere on the property while maintaining the project's compatibility in mass and scale to adjacent existing residential buildings. 2. .The granting of such variance will not be detrimental nor injurious to the property or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located in that the additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors would result in reduced parcel coverage on the fourth floor creating a project that is more compatible in mass and scale with the surrounding buildings and uses. The additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors would result in a decreased fourth floor footprint allowing the fourth floor to be located further setback from the street and thereby reducing the visible mass and scale of the project. The provision of an expansive central courtyard accessible from both Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard would not be affected by the additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors. The courtyard and the upper level building stepbacks provide for an articulated project compatible with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood and allow for a project that appropriately transitions in height between the adjacent residential buildings. 3. The strict application of the provisions of this Chapter would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, not including economic difficulties or economic hardships in that that due to existing parcel constraints and the placement of adjacent uses, practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships would result in attempting to create a project compatible in mass and scale to existing two and three story buildings in the general area. The curved triangle shape of the parcel and large expanse of the side elevation along San Vicente Boulevard requires additional building articulation and stepbacks along the street and thereby necessitating the reallocation of parcel coverage elsewhere on the property. The strict application of the parcel coverage limits on the second and third floor would result in increased building mass on the fourth floor resulting in a project design that is incompatible with the neighborhood in terms of mass and scale and would not adequately transition in height with the surrounding buildings. 4. The granting of a variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter, nor to the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. Specifically, Objective 1.10 calls for expanding the opportunity for residential land use while protecting the scale and character of existing neighborhoods. Policy 1.10.1 encourages the development of new housing in all residential districts while still protecting the character and scale of neighborhoods. The granting of a variance to allow the second and third floor parcel coverages to exceed the limits set forth by the Municipal Code would result in reduced parcel coverage on the fourth floor creating a project that is more compatible in scale and- character with the existing surrounding neighborhood. The provision of an expansive central courtyard accessible from both Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard would not be affected by the additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors. The courtyard and the upper level building stepbacks provide for an articulated project compatible with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood and allow for a project that appropriately transitions in height between the adjacent residential buildings. 5. The variance would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be located in that the additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors would result in reduced parcel coverage on the fourth floor creating a project that is more compatible in mass and scale with the surrounding buildings and uses. The district in which the subject project is located includes building ranging between two stories in height to multi-story high-rise towers. The additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors- would result in a decreased fourth floor footprint allowing the fourth floor to be located further setback from the street and thereby reducing the visible mass and scale of the project. The provision of an expansive central courtyard accessible from both Ocean Avenue and San Vicente .Boulevard would not be affected by the additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors. The courtyard and the upper level building stepbacks provide for an articulated project compatible with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood and allow for a project that appropriately transitions in height between the adjacent residential buildings. 6. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance in that the subject parcel is a standard-sized parcel located within an urbanized area adequately served by existing roadways and infrastructure. The property is physically able to accommodate the proposed development with- the additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors while still providing enough space for a central courtyard and adequate setbacks. The property is relatively level and has been previously developed with a 47-unit apartment complex. 7. There are adequate provisions for water,. sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed variance would not be detrimental to public health and safety in that the subject property is located within a developed urbahized environmeht that is adequately served by existing infrastructure, public utilities and services. The property has been previously developed with a 47-unit apartment complex, and it is not anticipated that approval of the subject application fora 20-unit complex with additional parcel coverage on the second and third floors will create a need for additional utilities or services. 8. There will be adequate provisions for public access to serve the subject variance proposal in that adequate pedestrian and vehicular access will be available from Ocean Avenue, San Vicente Boulevard, and First Court alley. Bus stops are also located within close proximity to the subject site. 9. The strict application of the provisions of this Chapter would result in unreasonable deprivation of the use or enjoyment of the property in that due to existing parcel constraints and the placement of adjacent uses, practical use or enjoyment of the subject parcel would not be possible. The curved triangle shape of the parcel and large expanse of the side elevation along San Vicente Boulevard requires additional building articulation and stepbacks along the street and thereby necessitating the reallocation of parcel coverage elsewhere on the property. The strict application of the parcel coverage limits on the second and third floor would result in increased building mass on the fourth floor resulting in a project design that is not compatible in mass and scale to the surrounding neighborhood and would affect the viability of the subject project. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Administrative 1. The Planning Commission's approval, conditions of approval, or denial of this application may be appealed to the City Council if the appeal is filed with the Zoning Administrator within fourteen consecutive days following the date of the Planning Commission's determination in the manner provided in Part 9.04.20.24, Sections 9.04.20.24.010 through 9.04.20.24.040. An appeal of the approval, conditions of approval, or denial of a subdivision map must be filed with the City Clerk within ten consecutive days following the date of Planning Commission determination in the manner provided in Part 9.20.14, Section 9.20.14.070. Any appeal must be made in the form required by the Zoning Administrator. The approval of this permit shall expire if the rights granted are not exercised within two years from the permit's effective date. Exercise of rights shall mean issuance of a building permit to commence construction. 2. Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.04.10.02.450(d), if the Building Official determines that another building permit has been issued less than fifteen months prior to the date on which the building permit for this project has received all plan check approvals and none of the relevant exceptions specified in 9.04.10.02.450(c) and (e) apply, the Building Official shall place the project on a waiting list in order of the date and time of day that the permit application received all plan check approvals, and the term of this approval and other City approvals or permits necessary to commence the project shall be automatically extended by the amount of time that a project remains on the waiting list. However, the permit shall also expire if the building permit expires, if final inspection is not completed or a Certificate of Occupancy is not issued within the time periods specified in SMMC Section 8.08.060. One one-year extension may be permitted if approved by the Director of Planning. Applicant is on notice that time extensions shall not be granted if development standards or the development process relevant to the project have changed since project approval. Extension requests to a subdivision map must be approved by the Planning Commission. 3. The tentative map shall expire 24 months after approval, except as provided in the provisions of California Government Code Section 66452.6 and Subchapter 9.20.18 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. During this .time period the final map shall be presented to the City of Santa Monica for approval. No building permit for the project will be granted until such time as the final map is approved by the Santa Monica City Council. 4. Within ten days of City Planning Division transmittal of the Statement of Official Action, project applicant shall sign and return a copy of the Statement of Official Action prepared by the City Planning Division, agreeing to the conditions of approval and acknowledging that failure to comply with such conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval. By signing same, applicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights applicant may possess regarding said conditions. The signed Statement shall be returned to the City Planning Division. Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute grounds for. potential permit revocation. 5. Within thirty (30) days after final approval of the project, a sign shall be posted on site stating the date and nature of the approval. The sign shall be posted in accordance with the Zoning Administrator guidelines. and shall remain in place until a building permit is issued for the project. The sign shall be removed promptly when a building permit is issued for the project or upon expiration of the Design Compatibility Permit. 6. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied. 7. Applicant is advised that projects in the California Coastal Zone may need approval of the California Coastal Commission prior to issuance of any building permits by the City of Santa Monica. Applicant is responsible for obtaining any such permits. Conformance with Approved Plans 8. This approval is for those plans dated August 4, 2010, a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the City Planning Division. Project development shall be consistent with-such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval. 9. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. A significant change in the approved concept shall be subject to Planning Commission Review. Construction shall be in conformance with the plans submitted or as modified by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board or Director of Planning. 10. Project plans shall be subject to complete Code Compliance review when the building plans are submitted for plan check and shall comply with all applicable.. provisions of Article IX of the Municipal Code and all other pertinent ordinances and General Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica prior to building permit issuance. Affordable Housing Obligation 11. Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter 9.56, the project is subject to the City's Affordable Housing Production Program which requires the proposed 20-unit condominium development to provide twenty-five (25) percent of the units affordable to moderate income households on-site or five (5) units. The applicant will satisfy this affordable housing obligation by providing five (5) two-bedroom moderate income on-site ownership units pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.050(b). Prioritization of potential occupants of the affordable housing unit(s) shall be in accordance with the Affordable Housing Production Program Ordinance Guidelines. Fees 12. A Park and Recreation Facilities Tax of $200.00 per residential unit shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of a building permit for the construction or placement of the residential unit(s) on the subject lot, per and subject to the provisions of Section 6.80.010 et seq. of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. 13. Prior to issuance of a condominium license, the developer shall provide for the payment of a Condominium Tax of $1,000 per planned salable unit pursuant to Chapter 6.76 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. 14. No building permit shall be issued for the project until the developer complies with the requirements of Part 9.04.10.20 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, Private Developer Cultural Arts Requirement. If the developer elects to comply with these requirements by providing on-site public art work or cultural facilities, no final City approval shall be granted until such time as the Director of the Community and Cultural Services Department issues a notice of compliance in accordance with Part 9.04.10.20. 15. No building permit shall be issued for the project until the developer complies with the requirements of Chapter 9.72 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, the Child Care Linkage Program. Mitigation Monitoring Program 16. Pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Planning Division will coordinate a monitoring and reporting program regarding any required changes to the project made in conjunction with project approval and any conditions of approval, including those conditions intended to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. This program shall include, but is not limited to, ensuring that the City Planning Division itself and other City divisions and departments such as the Building and Safety Division, the Department of Environmental and Public Works, the Fire Department, the Police Department, the Planning and Community Development Department and the Finance Department are aware of project requirements which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a Building Permit, Certificate 'of Occupancy, or other permit, and that other responsible agencies are also informed of conditions relating to their responsibilities. Project owner shall demonstrate compliance with conditions of approval in a written report submitted to the Planning Director and Building Officer prior to issuance of a Building Permit or Certificate of Occupancy, and, as applicable, provide periodic reports regarding compliance with such conditions. Construction Effects • Construction Impact Mitigation Plan. The applicant- shall prepare, implement, and maintain a Construction Impact Mitigation Plan which shall be designed to: o Prevent material traffic impact on the surrounding roadway network. o Minimize parking impacts both to public parking and access to private parking to the greatest extent practicable. o Ensure safety for both those constructing the project and surrounding community. o Prevent substantial truck traffic through residential neighborhoods. • The Construction Impact Mitigation Plan shall be subject to review and approval by the following City departments: Public Works Department, Fire, Planning and Community Development, and Police to ensure that the Plan has been designed in accordance with this Mitigation Measure. This review shall occur prior to commencement of any construction staging for the project. It shall at a minimum include the following: • Ongoing Requirements Throughout the Duration of Construction o A detailed traffic control plan for work zones shall be maintained. At a minimum, this shall include: parking and travel lane configuration; warning, regulatory, guide, and directional signage; and area sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and parking lanes. The plan shall include specific information regarding the projects construction activities that may disrupt normal pedestrian and traffic flow and the measures to address these disruptions. Such plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Transportation Management Division prior to commencement of construction and implemented in accordance with this approval. o Work within the public right-of-way shall be performed between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. This work included dirt and demolition materials hauling and construction material delivery. Work within the public right-of-way outside of these hours shall only be allowed after the issuance of an after-hours construction permit. o Streets and equipment shall be cleaned in accordance with established PW requirements. o Trucks shall only travel on aCity-approved construction route. Truck queing/staging shall not be allowed on Santa Monica streets. Limited queing may occur on the construction site itself. o Materials and equipment shall be minimally visible to the public; the preferred location for materials is to be onsite, with a minimum amount of materials within a work area in the public right-of-way, subject to current Use of Public Property Permit. o Any requests for work before or after normal construction hours with the public right-of-way shall be subject to review and approval through the After Hours Permit process administered by the Building and Safety Division. o Provision of off-street parking for construction workers, which may include the use of a remote location with shuttle transport to the site, if determined necessary by the City of Santa Monica. Project Coordination Elements That Shall Be Implemented Prior to Commencement of Construction o The applicant shall advise the traveling public of impending construction activities (e.g., information signs, portable message signs, media listing/information, and implementation of an approved traffic control plan). o The applicant shall obtain a Use of Private Property Permit, Excavation Permit, Sewer Permit, or Oversize Load Permit, as well as Caltrans Permits required, for any construction work requiring encroachment into public right-of-way, detours, or any other work within the public right-of- way. o The applicant shall provide timely notification of construction schedules to all affected agencies (e.g., Big Blue Bus, Police Department, Fire Department, Public Works Department, and Planning and Community Development Department) and to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property within a radius of 500 feet. o The applicant shall coordinate construction work with affected agencies in advance of start of work. Approvals may take up to two weeks per each submittal o The applicant shall obtain Transportation Management Division approval of any haul routes for earth, concrete, or construction materials and equipment hauling. • Diesel Equipment Mufflers. All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory recommended mufflers. • Electrically-Powered Tools. Electrically powered tools shall be used to run air compressors and similar powered tools. • Restrictions on Excavation and Foundation/Conditioning. Excavation, foundation-laying, and conditioning activities (the noisiest phases of construction) shall be restricted to between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, in accordance with Section 4.12.110(d) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.. • Additional Noise Attenuation Techniques. For all noise-generating construction activity on the project site, additional noise attenuation techniques shall be employed as necessary to reduce noise levels to City of Santa Monica noise standards. Such techniques may include the use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment and the construction of temporary sound barriers between construction sites and nearby sensitive receptors. • Construction Sign Posting. In accordance with Municipal Code Section 4.12.120, the project applicant shall post a sign informing all workers and subcontractors of the time restrictions for construction activities. The sign shall also include the City telephone numbers where violations can be reported and complaints associated with construction noise can be submitted. Cultural Resources 17. If any archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation or construction, work in the affected area shall be suspended and a recognized specialist shall be contacted to conduct a survey of the affected area at project's owner's expense. A determination shall then be made by the Director of Planning to determine the significance of the survey findings and appropriate actions and requirements, if any, to address such findings. CC&Rs 18. Prior to issuance of building permits, Condominium Association By-Laws and a Declaration of CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The CC&R's shall contain anon-discrimination clause as presented in SMMC Section 9.20.20.020 and such provisions as are required by SMMC Section 9.04.16.01.030(d) and (e). Project Operations 19. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or other actions. 20. The project shall at all times comply with the provisions of the Noise Ordinance (SMMC Chapter 4.12). Final Design 21. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash enclosures, and signage shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Board. 22. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the project's pedestrian orientation and amenities; scale and articulation of design elements; exterior colors, textures and materials; window treatment; glazing; and landscaping. 23. The existing mature trees shall be preserved in their present location on site, relocated to a specific location on site or replaced with specimen trees to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board. 24. In addition to other landscaping requirements, the Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall ensure that at least 50% of the unexcavated side yard setback area (s) shall be adequately landscaped. 25. Landscaping plans shall comply with Subchapter 9.04.10.04 (Landscaping Standards) of the Zoning Ordinance including use of water-conserving landscaping materials, landscape maintenance and other standards contained in the Subchapter. 26. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall be screened in accordance with SMMC Section 9.04.10.02.130, 140, and 150. Refuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site need, including recycling. The Architectural Review Board in its review shall pay particular attention to the screening of such areas and equipment. Any rooftop mechanical equipment shall be minimized in height and area, and shall be located in such a way as to minimize noise and visual impacts to surrounding properties. Unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Board, rooftop mechanical equipment shall be located at least five feet from the edge of the roof. Except for solar hot water heaters, no residential water heaters shall be located on the roof. 27. No gas or electric meters shall be located within the required front or street side yard setback areas. The Architectural Review Board in its review shall pay particular attention to the location and screening of such meters. 28. Prior to consideration of the project by the Architectural Review Board, the applicant shall review disabled access requirements with the Building and Safety Division and make any necessary changes in the project design to achieve compliance with such requirements. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the aesthetic, landscaping, and setback impacts of any ramps or other features necessitated by accessibility requirements. 29. As appropriate, the Architectural Review Board shall require the use of anti- graffiti materials on surfaces likely to attract graffiti. 30. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the appropriateness of the architectural style and aesthetic given the project location and its surroundings, the era of its construction, and the gateway location of the subject property into the City. 31. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the street facing building elevations along San Vicente Boulevard and Ocean Avenue. 32. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the appropriateness, pedestrian orientation, scale, and compatibility of the gates along San Vicente Boulevard and Ocean Avenue leading to the central courtyard. 33. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the landscaping to ensure that adequate soil depth and area are provided for all plantings. In addition, adequate landscaping shall be located along First Court alley in order to provide an appropriate transition and buffer between the subject project and the adjacent buildings to the east. Construction Plan Requirements 34. Final building plans submitted for approval of a building permit shall include on .the plans a list of all permanent mechanical equipment to be placed indoors which may be heard outdoors. Demolition Requirements 35. Until such time as the demolition is undertaken, and unless the structure is currently in use, the existing structure .shall be maintained and secured by boarding up all openings, erecting a security fence, and removing all debris, bushes and planting that inhibit the easy surveillance of the property to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Officer and the Fire Department. Any landscaping material remaining shall be watered and maintained until demolition occurs. 36. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, applicant shall prepare for Building Division approval a rodent and pest control plan to insure that demolition and construction activities at the site do not create pest control impacts on the project neighborhood. Construction Period 37. During demolition, excavation, and construction, this project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 to minimize fugitive dust and associated particulate emission, including but not limited to the following: • All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least three times daily with complete coverage, preferably at the start of the day, in the late morning, and after work is done for the day. • All grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph measured as instantaneous wind gusts) so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • All material transported on and off-site shall be securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • Soils stockpiles shall be covered. • Onsite vehicle speeds shall be limited to 15 mph. • Wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit the construction site onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. • An appointed construction relations officer shall act as a community liaison concerning onsite construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM~o generation. • Streets shall be swept at the end of the day using SCAQMD Rule 1186 certified street sweepers or roadway washing trucks if visible soil is carried onto adjacent public paved roads (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). • All active portions the construction site shall be sufficiently watered three times a day to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 38. Immediately after demolition and during construction, a security fence, the height of which shall be the maximum permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained around the perimeter of the lot. The lot shall be kept clear of all trash, weeds, etc. 39. Vehicles hauling dirt or .other construction debris from the site shall cover any open load with a tarpaulin or other secure covering to minimize dust emissions. Immediately after commencing dirt removal from the site, the general contractor shall provide the City of Santa Monica with written certification that all trucks leaving the site are covered in accordance with this condition of approval. 40. Developer shall prepare a notice, subject to the review by the Director of Planning and Community Development, that lists all construction mitigation requirements, permitted hours of construction, and identifies a contact person at City Hall as well as the developer who will respond to complaints related to the proposed construction. The notice shall be mailed to property owners and residents within a 200-foot radius from the subject site at least five (5) days prior to the start of construction. 41. A sign shall be posted on the property in a manner consistent with the public hearing sign. requirements which shall identify the address and phone number of the owner and/or applicant for the purposes of responding to questions and complaints during the construction period. Said sign shall also indicate the hours of permissible construction work. 42. A copy of these conditions shall- be posted in an easily visible and accessible location at all times during construction at the project site. The pages shall be laminated or otherwise protected to ensure durability of the copy. Standard Conditions 43. Lofts or mezzanines shall not exceed 33.3% of the room below unless compliance with the district's limits on number of stories can be maintained. Lofts or mezzanines located in studio units shall not exceed 99 square feet unless parking in compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements is provided. 44. No fence, gate, or wall within the required front yard setback, inclusive of any subterranean garage slab and fencing, gate, or railing on top thereof, shall exceed a height of 42" above actual grade of the property. 45. Mechanical equipment shall not be located on the side of any building which is adjacent to a residential building on the adjoining lot, unless otherwise permitted by applicable regulations. Roof locations may be used when the mechanical equipment is installed within asound-rated parapet enclosure. 46. Final approval of any mechanical equipment installation will require a noise test in compliance with SMMC Section 4.12.040. Equipment for the test shall be provided by the owner or contractor and the test shall be conducted by the owner or contractor. A copy of the noise test results on mechanical equipment shall be submitted to the Community Noise Officer for review to ensure that noise levels do not exceed maximum allowable levels for the applicable noise zone. 47. Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be subject to the review and approval of the Transportation Management Division. 48. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a copy of the recorded map shall be provided to the City Planning Division. 49. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Subchapter 9.04.16 Condominiums. 50. Construction period signage shall be subject to the approval of the Architectural Review Board. 51. The property owner shall insure any graffiti on the site is promptly removed through compliance with the City's graffiti removal program. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (PW) Drainage 52. To mitigate storm water and surface runoff from the project site, an Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan may be required by the Department of Public Works pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 7.10. Prior to submittal of landscape plans for Architectural Review Board approval,. the applicant shall contact Public Works to determine applicable requirements, which include the following: • Non-stormwater runoff, sediment- and construction waste from the construction site and parking areas is prohibited from leaving the site; • An sediments or materials which are tracked off-site must be removed the same day they are tracked off-site; • Excavated soil must be located on the site and soil piles should be covered and otherwise protected so that sediments do not go into the street or adjoining properties; • Washing of construction or other vehicles shall be allowed adjacent to a construction site. No runoff from washing vehicles on a construction site shall be allowed to leave the site; • Drainage controls may be required depending on the extent of grading and topography of the site; and • New development is required to reduce projected runoff pollution by at least twenty percent through incorporation of design elements or principles, such as increasing permeable surfaces, diverting or catching runoff via swales, berms, and the like; orientation of drain gutters towards permeable areas; modification of grades; use of retention structures and other methods. 53. Automotive repair facilities and dealerships, parking areas and structures, automotive paint shops, gas stations, equipment degreasing areas, and other facilities generating wastewater with significant oil and grease content are required to pretreat these wastes before discharging to the City sewer or storm drain system. Pretreatment will require that a clarifier or oil/water separator be installed and maintained on site. In cases where settleable solids are present (or expected) in greater amounts than floatable oil and grease, a clarifier unit will be required. In cases where the opposite waste characteristics are present, an oil/water separator with automatic oil draw-off will be required instead. The Public Works Department will set .specific requirements. Building permit plans shall show the required installation. Hazardous Materials 54. Prior to the demolition of any existing structure, the applicant shall submit a report from an industrial hygienist to be reviewed and approved as to content and form by the Public Works /Environmental Programs Division. The report shall consist of a hazardous materials survey for the structure proposed for demolition. The report shall include a section on asbestos and in accordance with the South Coast AQMD Rule 1403, the asbestos survey. shall be performed by a state Certified Asbestos Consultant (CAC). The report shall include a section on lead, which shall be performed by a state Certified Lead Inspector/Assessor. Additional hazardous materials to be considered by the industrial hygienist shall include: mercury (in thermostats, switches, fluorescent light); polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (including light Ballast), and fuels, pesticides, and batteries. Streets 55. Unless otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable during the grading and construction phase of the project. 56. Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need replacing or removal as a result of the project as determined by the Department of Public Works shall be reconstructed to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. Approval for this work shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of the building permits. 57. Street and/or alley lighting shall be provided on public rights of way adjacent to the project if and as needed per the specifications and with the approval of the Department of Public Works. Off-site 58. All off-site improvements required by the City Engineer shall be installed. Plans and specifications for off-site improvements shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer. 59. A subdivision improvement agreement for all off-site improvements required by the City Engineer shall be prepared and a performance bond posted through the City Attorney's office. Environmental Mitigation 60. To mitigate solid waste impacts, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, project owner shall submit a recycling plan to the Department of Public Works for its approval. The recycling plan shall include: 1) List of materials such as white paper, computer paper, metal cans, and glass to be recycled; 2) Location of recycling bins; 3) Designated recycling coordinator; 4) Nature and extent of internal and external pick-up service; 5) Pick-up schedule; and 6) Plan to inform tenants/ occupants of service. 61. Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures are required on all new development and remodeling where plumbing is to be added, including dual flush toilets, 1.0 gallon urinals and low flow shower heads. Construction Period Mitigation 62. A construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by the applicant for approval by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit. The approved mitigation plan shall be posted on the site for the duration of the project construction and shall be produced upon request. As applicable, this plan shall: 1) Specify the names, addresses, telephone numbers and business license numbers of all contractors and subcontractors as well as the developer and architect; 2) Describe how demolition of any existing structures is to be accomplished; 3) Indicate where any cranes are to be located for erection/construction; 4) Describe how much of the public street, alleyway, or sidewalk is proposed to be used in conjunction with construction; 5) Set forth the extent and nature of any pile-driving operations; 6) Describe the length and number of any tiebacks which must extend under the property of other persons; 7) Specify the nature and extent of any dewatering and its effect on any adjacent buildings; 8) Describe anticipated construction-related truck routes, number of truck trips, hours of hauling and parking location; 9) Specify the nature and extent of any helicopter hauling; 10) State whether any construction activity beyond normally permitted hours is proposed; 11) Describe any proposed construction noise mitigation measures, including measures to limit the duration of idling construction trucks; 12) Describe construction-period security measures including any fencing, lighting, and security personnel; 13) Provide a drainage plan; 14) Provide aconstruction-period parking plan which shall minimize use of public streets for parking; 15) List a designated on-site construction manager; 16) Provide a construction materials recycling plan which seeks to maximize the reuse/recycling of construction waste; 17) Provide a plan regarding use of recycled and low-environmental-impact materials in building construction; and 18) Provide a construction period water runoff control plan. Final Map Requirements 63. In submitting required materials to the Santa Monica Civil Engineering and Architecture Division for a final map, applicant shall provide a copy of the approved Statement of Official Action. 64. The form, contents, accompanying data, and filing of the final subdivision map shall conform to the provisions of SMMC Sections 9.20.12.010 through 9.20.08.090 and the Subdivision Map Act. The required Final Map filing fee shall be paid prior to scheduling of the Final Map for City Council approval. 65. One mylar and one blue-line copy of the final map shall be provided to and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder prior to issuance of any building permit fora condominium project pursuant to Government Code Section 66499.30. Applicant shall also provide the County with a copy of this Statement of Official Action at the time the required copies of the map are submitted. 66. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the requirements of Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.10.16.010 (d) shall have been met. Open Space Management 67. Street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as required in a manner consistent with the City's Community Forest Management Plan 2000, per the specifications of the Public Landscape Division of the Community Maintenance Department and the City's Tree Code (SMMC Chapter 7.40). No street trees shall be removed without the approval of the Public Landscape Division. Fire 68. A security gate shall be provided across the opening to the subterranean garage. If any guest parking space is located in the subterranean garage, the security gate shall be equipped with an electronic or other system which will open the gate to provide visitors with vehicular access to the garage without leaving their vehicles. The security gate shall receive approval of the Police and Fire Departments prior to issuance of a building permit. ATTACHMENTF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED SINCE THE AUGUST 18, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk's office and the Libraries. 111 ARMERIJSTEid GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS o LITIGATION ^ MUNICIPAL ADVOCACY DALE GOLDSMITH 11611 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD, SUITE 900 Tel: (310 20 DIRECT DIAL: (310) 254-9054 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 ) 9-8800 Fax: (310) 209-8801 E-MAIL: Dale@AGD-LandUse.com WEB: www.AGD-LandUse.com September 8, 2010 VIA E-MAIL and U.S. MAIL r o c? Mr. Tony Kim ~`~ 0 Planning Department ~ ~~ 1685 Main Street, Room 212 e ~~ Santa Monica, California 90401 ~ ~~ c~ ~ _. ~ ra Re: 301 Dcean Avenuei l vl;RC^ 1, l i? i'2.?_OJ2 and 10\•'AR-OOR ~ ' `~ ="' Dear Tony: As you know, we represent 301 Ocean Development LLC (the "Applicant"), the owner of the property located at 301 Ocean Avenue (the "Property") ir, the City of Santa Monica ("City"). Our client is seeking to develop the Property with a LEED Silver-certified condominium project with fifteen market rate and five affordable units (the "Project"). On August 18, 2010, the Planning Commission unanimously approved a development review permit, vesting tentative tract map, and variance for the Project. On September 1, 2010, Titus Wapato, on behalf of Citizens in San Vicente-Ocean Avenue Neighborhood ("Appellant"), appealed each of the approvals granted by"the Planning Commission. We are writing to provide a point-by-point response to the allegations in the appeal. For the reasons set forth below, the appeal is without merit and should be denied. 1. The Citv Camulied with aii Required Procedures iu Adontine the MND. The Appellant asserts that the Statement of Official Action ("STOA") fails to include "certification" of the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") for the Project. In fact, the California ERVIrOYITYIental OUahtV A,Ct ("(',F(`Q"1 rp~„~ir_ac the C' +~ +..:~7-- '- - ~ ».a~t _ '.iC"c.i tify,trle. lt/iVLF. Tllt draft STOA attached to the August 18, 2010 Staff Report (the "Staff Report") clearly indicates the adoption of the MND. The Appellant also alleges that the City made significant changes to the MND after the close of the 30-day public comment period that deprived the public of an opportunity to review and comment. In fact, the changes to the Final MND ware miner and did not alter any of the conclusions of the draft MND. First, the City updated the construction emissions in Table 5 in the Final MND. These updates resulted in Project PM10 and I'M2.5 construction emissions being slightly lower than shown in the Draft MND. In response to a comment to the Draft MND, the City atso expanded the discussion in the Cultural Resources section of the Final MND to summarize briefly the two expert historic resource reports referred to in the Draft MND. The Final MND also included these reports as ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP Mr. Tony Kim September 8, 2010 Page 2 appendices. This additional information merely clarified and amplified the analysis in the Draft MND and did not change the Draft MND's conclusions. In any event, the Appellant was not prejudiced by this inclusion, as he was well aware of the two expert reports. The Appellant submitted detailed comments on the reports in connection with the proceedings before the Landmarks Commission and City Council that resulted in the determination that the existing building complex did not qualify as a City landmark. 2. 1'he Project will not Create anY Landslide Hazards. The Appellant states his opinion, unsupported by any technical analysis or expert testimony, that the Project will create landslide ht~zar«s. "ine MND states at page 3b: '` 1'le geologic character of an area determines its potential for landslides. Steep slopes, the extent of erosion, and the rock composition of a hillside all contribute to the potential for slope failure and landslide events." While the Property is located in an area that is designated as having a high potential for landslides, it is "located approximately 100 feet from the bluff edge and is located on a level surface. Therefore, in actuality, the potential for landslides is low." MND, page 38. Moreover, the Project applicant will be required, as part of the normal building permit process, to prepare a detailed geotechnical report that will "ensure that any potential for adverse impacts will be reduced through incorporation of design specifications." Id. Please refer also to the attached response from the Project geotechnical expert, Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. 3. The Project is Comnafible with the Surrounding Neighborhood. The Appellant argues that the Project is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood because there are no Spanish Revival-style buildings in the adjacent neighborhoods. In fact; there is no predominant architectural style in the surrounding area. As set forth at page 6 of the Staff Report, the surrounding neighborhood "primarily consists ofmulti-story, multi-family residential buildings ranging between two to seventeen stories in height and with an eclectic mix of architectural styles." Moreover, there.are over 20 Spanish Re~rval Mule h~~ild re; in tl : D q'rPrr ,.., In any event, required compatibility finding relates only to "physical location, size, massing, and placement of proposed structures on the site and the location of proposed uses within the project." SMMC Section 9.04.20.14.040(x). There is no requirement that the Project's architectural style be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; architectural style is in the purview of the ARB and not the Planning Commission. In addition, SMMC Section 9.04.20.14.040(x) provides that the "size of the. project shall be deemed compatible with and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods provided the project is consistent with the height and density standards set forth in the Land Use Element of the General Plan...." As the Project is consistent with the height and density ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP Mr. Tony Kim September 8, 2010 Page 3 standards set forth in the former LUCEi, its size is deemed compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission correctly found that the separation of the Project into three buildings "reduces the scale of the project, and the openings into the courtyard along with upper level building stepbacks along Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard provide for an articulated project compatible with the surrounding buildings and neighborhood. While the development standards for the R4 district allow for four-story buildings, the building located along San Vicente Boulevard will consist of three stories. The reduced fourth story footprint and lower building height along San Vicente Boulevard ailows for a project that appropriately transitions in height between adjacent buildings." The Appellant has failed to show how the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion in making this finding. 4. The Variance Reduces the Visible Mass and Scale of the Protest. The Appellant alleges that the variance increases the appeazance of massing from the street view and creates even less compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. In fact, the variance allows the Project to relocate parcel coverage from the fourth floor, where it is most visible, to the second and third floors,thereb y reducing the associated building mass and re-distributing the mass to the second and third floors where it is less visible. The overall perceived scale of the project is reduced. Additionally, the Project will have slightly less total square footage with the variance than would otherwise be allowed under the Zoning Code, and the Project's average parcel coverage would be consistent with Code requirements. The Planning Commission correctly found that the variance makes the Project more compatible with the surrounding buildings and uses in that it will result in "a decreased fourth floor footprint allowing the fourth floor to be located further setback [sic] from the street and thereby reducing the visible mass and scale of the project." The Appellant has failed to show llvVi" :le-i"riti3:iip~, Vtili1n21S~1"Uri e1 r~Q' Or aUUSeU itS d1SCYeilOT1 in Illalimg t111S fmdmg. 5. Tine MND is the Appropriate CEQA Review for the Protect. The Appellant asserts, without elaboration, that the City should have prepared an environmental impact report ("EIR") for the Project. However, nothing in the appeal or elsewhere in the record constitutes substantial evidence showing that the Project will result in a significant unxnitigatable impact. The Appellant has not introduced any evidence that he is an expert or otherwise has special qualifications to comment on the technical analyses in the MNll. The Appeal and the Appellant's oral and written testimony in the record consist entirely of speculation, argument, and unsupported opinion. On the contrary, each and every conclusion in the MND is supported by substantial evidence, including expert technical analyses and reports. Therefore, the MND is ~ The Project is not subject to the new LUCE because of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP Mr. Tony Kim September 8, 2010 Page 4 the appropriate CEQA review for the Project, and the Planning Commission correctly relied on the MND in approving the Project. 6. The Proiect will not Result in a Significant Imuaet on Visual Character. The Appellant states his opinion that the Project will result in a significant impact on the existing visual character. In fact, the Project will improve the site's visual character by replacing the existing deteriorated structures and related improvements with awell-designed, high quality Project with attractive hardscape and abundant landscaping. As set forth on Page 16 of the MND, the proposed "three- to four-story condominium complex would be similar in height and scale to stu7•uunding development; i;~cludurg fl1e two-story residential buildings to the east of the project site and the three-story residential building to the south of the site. The proposed project would also be compatible with the general profile of development near the project site, which is highly urban. The project would require review and approval by the Architectural Review Board, which would ensure that the project meets the City's standards regarding site design and architecture. Thus, project development would not degrade the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings. Impacts would be less than significant." The Appellant has not cited any substantial evidence to refute this conclusion. 7. The Proiect will not have a Significant Imuaet on Ilnstoric Resources. The Appellant states his opinion, unsupported by any expert analysis, that the Project will have a significant impact on historic resources. Although he does not state so expressly, it appears that the Appellant is asserting that the existing apartment complex is an historic resource. The MND concludes, based on not one but two expert reports, that this complex is not an historic resource, and that therefore its demolition will not result in a significant impact. In addition, the City Council determined last year that the complex does not qualify for City landmark status. The Appellant alleges that the City's independent historic resource expert, PCR, came to contrudi~to.y ccnciusiuns regaraing the ~igniiica,ice a~ the existing apartment complex. In fact, there is no such contradiction..In July 2008; PCR prepared a preliminary historic assessment of the complex. The purpose of this screening-level assessment was not to determine whether the complex was a significant historic resource, but whether a more in depth review was warranted. PCR conservatively concluded that additional analysis would be appropriate. PCR completed this extensive analysis in December 2008 and concluded that the existing complex was not a significant historic resource. The Appellant also asserts that the Property- has been identified as the gateway to the historic San Vicente Boulevard courtyard district. As a preliminary matter, the City has not formally designated such a district. Moreover, page 2.2-19 of The adopted LUCE clearly shows the San Vicente Courtyard District as beginning to the east of the Property at First Court. Rather, the Property is part of a different district: "Ocean Avenue between the City's northern ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP Mr. Tony Kim September 8, 2010 Page 5 limit at Adelaide Drive to Montana Avenue includes a narrow band ofhigh-density multifamily structures ranging from two to six stories in height. The buildings in this portion of the City are oriented west, giving the occupants spectacular views of Palisades Park and the Pacific Ocean." LUCE, p. 2.2-17. In addition, the City Landmark Commission determined in September 2006 that the property directly to the east at 130-142 San Vicente Boulevard is the true gateway to the San Vicente Boulevard courtyard district. See STOA No. LC-06-LM-008. In any event, PCR's December 2008 City Landmark Assessment Report expressly considered whether the existing complex was significant as a contributor to a potential San Vicente courtyard district. PCR concludes, as page 78 ofthis Report, that "Building A has been substantially modified from its original appearance, the apartment complex was built in stages. Overall it minimally incorporates the character-defining features of post-war multi-family residential architecture. It does have a central courtyard and some basic elements of Modern design and construction, but the complex is not set back from the street, there is little garden frontage, and the layout does not incorporate the seamless continuity of space between the interior courtyard and the frontage that is required for classification as a Garden Apartment. The apartment complex lacks unity of design, its integrity has been compromised, it does not embody Garden Apartment architecture, and it is a common example of a post-war multi- family apartment complex. Therefore, the subject property does not appear eligible as a contributor to the potential courtyard district." The Appellant has offered no substantial evidence to refute this expert analysis. 8. 'The Proiect will not Result in anY Significant Economic or Social Impacts. The Appellant argues that the Project will result in significant economic or social impacts in that it will replace 47 affordable rental units with five condominiums affordable to moderate income families. In fact, the rental units were subject to vacancy decontrol, which allows the landlord to Ya1Se Tents to market ea Cli tirpe that :a tanw+r~t yaL'.'te.: tl:e nit. t.' ~. * , 'T ° : ,^d a a Cva.rab~, trl., crate ini)'.'Jrne units will be deed restricted to guarantee continued affordability for the life of the Project. In any event, CEQA does not require analysis of purely economic of social impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(e). Rather CEQA requires analysis of physical impacts on the environment. In this case, the MND considered whether the demolition of the existing rental units would have an impact the physical environment by requiring the construction of new housing. The MND correctly concluded that the removal of this number of units was not of sufficient magnitude to require construction of new housing. Moreover, the Project applicant offered generous relocation assistance that helped the prior tenants find replacement housing. ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP Mr. Tony Kim September 8, 2010 Page 6 9. The Excavation 12eguired for the Proaect awiil not dtesuit in a Significant Y.andsLide Hazard. The Appellant also asserts, without substantiation, that the excavation required for the Project will cause a landslide hazard at Palisades Park. This assertion is refuted in Section 1 above and in the attached response from the Project geotechnical expert, Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. Please feel free to contact us if you require any additional information. Si:icer Dale 7. Goldsmith ec: 301 Ocean Development LLC Eileen Fogarty GEOTECHIV ICAL September 8, 2010 Trammell Crow Company 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, California 90087 Attention: Ms. Karen Shorr Development Manager Subject: Response to Appeal Comments Proposed Residential Development 301 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica, California GPI Project IVo. 2296.1 Dear Ms. Shorr: This letter presents our response to comments provided in an appeal ofi the approval ofithe design review application for the subject project. The appeal is dated September 1, 2010 (Application No. 1 OAPP005}. Specifically, this letter addresses comments 1Vos. 2 and 9 ofi the appeal relating to geotechnical issues. We performed a geotechnical investigation for the project and presented the results in a report titled "Geotechnical. Investigation, Proposed Residential Development, 301 Ocean Avenue, Santa Monica, Califiomia,"dated April 8, 2010. The report was submitted to the City of Santa Monica on April 26, 2010. Geotechnical Professionals Inc. (GPI} are geotechnical consultants in practice in Southern California since 1989. The preparers ofi our geotechnical investigation report, Mr. Paul Schade, G.E. and Mr. Thomas Hill, C.E.G., are professional geotechnical engineers and engineering geologists licensed in the State of California with over 20 and 30 years of relevant Southern California experience, respectively. GPI is qualified to both pertorm the geotechnical investigation fior the project and respond tothe geotechnically-related appeal comments. Comment 2: The conditions ofapproval fail to include provisions formitigafion oflandslide hazards Inherently created by the magnitude ofsoil displacement in an area that the Cityof Santa Monica has identifred as having high potential for landslides. Response: Published geologic maps indicate that the site is underlain by alluvia! terrace deposits to a depth exceeding 150 feet. Excellent outcrops of these deposits are exposed in the steeply sloping bluff face seaward of Ocean Avenue, which is located about 150 west of the site. The deposits consist of interbedded gravel, sand, silt, and clay that occur as beds and lenses that are relatively sharply defined and laterally continuous. As stated in 5736 Corporate Avenue ®Gypress, CA 5G63^ ~ C7941 220-2299 ,PAX (7947 220-2922 Trammell Crow September 6, 2010 Proposed Residential Development, 301 Ocean Avenue, Santa Monica, California GPI Project No. 2296.1 our report, "the horizontally stratified sediments, combined with the flat topography at the site, pose no slope stability (landslide) risk.° In addition, "the site is not located within the earthquake-induced landslide hazard zone established by the State." In our opirlion, development of the subject site as planned will not adversely affect those findings. Comment 9: The palisades approximately 100 feet west of the project are in a state of erosion. Many neighborhood residents are seriously concerned that the MND does not delve deeply enough into the hazards of the excavation of approximately 31,566 cubic yards of soil in an area that the City of Santa Monica has identified as having high potential for landslides. Response: The site is currently developed as residential units and includes subterranean parking. Based on our understanding, the proposed project will include one additional level of subterranean parking. In our opinion, the planned construction and excavation will not adversely affect the state of erosion of the palisades because the project will be designed and constructed to support the adjacent properties. The erosion of the bluff face is a sutficial issue that is not impacted by the planned project. Also, we have performed stability analyses of the planned project with respect to the adjacent sites, including the palisades, and have found a sufficient fiactor of safety is maintained with the project development. Finally, we are aware of several other existing projects along .Ocean Avenue that are in similar proximityto the bluff slope that have two or more subterranean levels. The potential for landslides, which was addressed in our prior response, will also not be significantly changed. We trus# that this letter provides the requested clarification. Please do not hesitate to call us if you have any questions on the contents or need additional information. Very truly yours, Geotechnacal Profiessionals tnc. Paul R. Schade, G.E. ~ ~°- Principal ` _, sa PS:sph SAP ° 8 2D10 2296-011-03L (9/10) 2 ATTACHMENT G RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 112 ATTACHMENT H FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE 301 OCEAN AVENUE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk's office and the Libraries. 116 ATTACHMENTI PROJECT PLANS AND PHOTOGRAPHS Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk's office and the Libraries. 117 Reference Resolution No. 10544 (CCS).