Planning Commission Report

1

Planning Commission Meeting: February 6, 2019

Agenda Item: 8-A

To: Planning Commission

From: Roxanne Tanemori, AICP, Acting City Planning Division Manager

Subject: Appeal of the Architectural Review Board’s approval of a façade renovation of an existing four-story, 21-unit condominium building, enhancement to the landscape features located in the front planters, and removal of a eucalyptus tree. The façade modifications include repainting the building, replacement of the existing plywood panels for new horizontal wood siding on the front elevation as well as replacement of the existing tile at the entry/landing/steps and repainting the handrail.

Address: 826 2nd Street Appellant: Eileen Carry Applicant: 826 Second Street Homeowners Association

Planning Commission Meeting: February 6, 2019 Agenda Item: 8-A

To: Planning Commission

From: Roxanne Tanemori, AICP, Acting City Planning Division Manager

Permit: 18ENT-0265

Address: 826 2nd Street

Applicant: 826 Second Street Homeowners Association (Shirin Asgarian, HOA President)

Subject

Appeal of the Architectural Review Board approval of a façade remodel, colors, materials, and modification to the existing front landscape, including removal of one tree at an existing 4-story, 21-unit multi-family residential building.

Zoning District R3 (Medium Density Residential) District

Land Use Element Designation

High Density Residential

Parcel Area (SF)/Dimensions 15,014 SF / 99.97’ W x 150.19’ D

Existing On-Site Improvements

Four-story, 21-unit condominium building

Rent Control Status Rent-Controlled and Exempt

Adjacent Zoning Districts & Land Uses

Adjacent and surrounding zoning is R3 & two- to four-story multi-family residential buildings.

2

Historic Resources Inventory The building is not listed on the HRI.

Site Location Map:

Recommended Action

1. Deny Appeal Application 18ENT-0265 and uphold the Architectural Review Board approval based on findings in Attachment B.

2. Adopt the Statement of Official Action

Executive Summary On August 20, 2018, the Architectural Review Board approved ARB Application 17ARB-0320 to allow façade renovation of an existing four-story, 21-unit condominium building, including enhancement to the existing landscaping located in front of the building facing 2nd Street. The Board previously reviewed the project on September 18, 2017 and continued it for further refinements. The approved changes include repainting the building from beige to white, replacing the vertical plywood panel located along the front façade with horizontal wood siding, replacing tile at building entry, removing a eucalyptus tree due to damage to building, and enhancing the existing landscape features within the front planters with more plants from the existing palette. On August 30, 2018, the appellant, Eileen Carry, filed a timely appeal of the Architectural Review Board’s approval of the façade renovation and landscape improvements for a variety of reasons such as the ARB’s approval was based on an incomplete proposal by the applicant, insufficient materials, unclear conditions of approval, tree removal, as well as other reasons that will be discussed further in the analysis section of this report. This is a de novo hearing and the Planning Commission may consider all aspects of the application as well as matters raised in the appeal. This report describes the proposed project scope and provides relevant background information, including description of the Architectural Review Board’s action, and analyzes the issues raised in the appeal application by the appellant.

Background The existing 21-unit condominium building was constructed in 1976 upon receiving approval from the Architectural Review Board for its design, colors, materials and

3

landscaping. This building was initially built as an apartment complex. On September 16, 1992, the Planning Commission approved Tenant Participating Conversion (TPC) and Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) converting it to a 21-unit condominium building pursuant to the provisions of the Tenant Ownership Rights Charter Amendment (TORCA). This practice of converting apartment buildings into condominiums is no longer permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The building is currently occupied with a mix of owner-occupied and rental units. Other than the TORCA conversion, the 43-year old building has had few upgrades since its completion, and through time, the building has begun to show its age. A few ARB staff-level approvals were granted for reroof of the building as well as window and door replacements on selected units spanning from 2003 through 2016. A holistic approach to the building’s maintenance, upgrade, and design refresh has not been proposed until the submittal 17ARB-0320 on August 1, 2017 for a façade remodel and landscape improvement. The subject property is located midblock on the west side of 2nd Avenue within the R3 (Medium Density Residential) District, and bounded by Montana Avenue to its north and Idaho Avenue to the south. The site is one block east of Ocean Avenue and Palisades Park. The neighborhood is primarily developed with older and newer built two- and three-story multi-unit apartment or condominium buildings with at-grade and semi-subterranean parking garages with a few four-story buildings mixed in. The eclectic neighborhood contains a mix of architectural styles and buildings are finished in a variety of materials such as stucco, wood/wood siding, composition shingle, and metal roof. Pursuant to the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.55.120, the Architectural Review Board has the review authority of new construction and modifications to existing buildings, including building design, colors, materials, landscape, and signage of all structures located within the Architectural Review District Boundaries. Minor changes can be approved administratively through established resolutions. The proposal was considered by the ARB at two separate meetings to ensure a good design that is supported by high quality materials and finishes to enhance the appearance of the building while achieving compatibility and consistency with other developments in the vicinity. The initial meeting took place on September 18, 2017 and the Board continued the project with comments requesting additional refinements from the applicant in order to achieve a more cohesive design. The minutes from that meeting is attached. Based on those comments, the project was revised, and on August 20, 2018, the Board reviewed the updated design for the second time and approved the renovation with conditions on a vote of 5-0 with two Board Members absent. The Statement of Official Action (STOA) is also attached to this report.

4

On August 30, 2018, the appellant filed an appeal of the ARB’s decision for reasons stated in the appeal application and supplemental information provided in a subsequent email (attached). Key aspects of the appeal are discussed below in the Project Analysis section of this report. On November 14, 2018, a revised STOA, which eliminated Condition #1 from the original STOA was sent to the applicant and the appellant. This condition required the continuation of the horizontal wood siding approved on the front elevation to continue to the rear elevation to replace the original plywood siding. The deletion of this condition was in response to one of the items discussed in the appeal application in that the replacement of the existing plywood siding on the rear elevation was not originally proposed by the applicant and it was determined to be outside the Board’s purview. More importantly, members of the public was not provided the opportunity to review the expanded scope. The revised STOA is also attached to the report.

Project Analysis Architectural Review Board Action The appellant is requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Architectural Review Board (ARB) August 20, 2018 approval of a façade remodel to an existing four-story, 21-unit condominium building, enhancement of the existing landscape features, including removal of one (of five) eucalyptus tree located within the two planters located in front of the building as depicted in Figures 1, 4 and 5. Specifically, the façade remodel and landscape improvements include the following:

Repaint the entire building from beige to white (Dunn Edwards White Dew-380);

Replace existing painted plywood panel sidings with new natural clear oil finish horizontal wood siding;

Repaint all metal railings/hand rail at the entry and garage gate (Dunn Edwards Deep Reservoir DE5874);

Replace existing tile at building entry/steps with new off-white ceramic tile;

Remove Eucalyptus Tree #3 (one of five) within the front planters due to damage to the building; and

Augment the two existing planters with additional plant materials of the same palette.

The 1976 building was constructed upon receiving ARB approval for its design, colors, materials, and landscaping and has not received an upgrade since with the exception of a reroof and some window and door replacement of selected units. The building is primarily finished in stucco accented with plywood panels, aluminum windows, and a combination flat/mansard roof design with rolled asphalt roof and tile. Much of its landscape features, including the five mature eucalyptus trees are located at the front within two planters (Figure 1). Façade improvement and/or landscape enhancements are encouraged by the City as it maintain the quality, usability, and livability of various buildings and associated outdoor spaces, provide needed update to aging buildings,

5

and improve the streetscape that contribute to the image of Santa Monica as an attractive place to live, work, and play.

Figure 1: Subject Property (Existing Condition of front elevation as seen from 2nd Street), built in 1976

The aforementioned improvements seek to provide a refresh of the building and overall appearance of the property. While the proposal appears to be an enhancement over the existing condition, it could not be approved administratively as it was not consistent with Resolution No. 95-001 for ARB staff-level approval. For that reason, the project was reviewed by the ARB on two separate occasions. September 18, 2017 ARB Hearing On September 18, 2017, the Board considered the proposal and was supportive of an update to the building and landscape. Based on public input and proposed design, the Board continued the project and expressed concerns about the choice and use of color and landscape design (Figures 2 and 3). The following comments were provided to the applicant:

The existing Eucalyptus trees are healthy and the Board is reluctant to approve their removal. The Board recommended trimming the trees to reduce conflicts with the building. If necessary to prevent further building damage, the Board may consider removal of one of the trees.

The Board supported an update to the building color and planting.

The Board was interested in seeing a contrasting color to be used for the wood panel area. There was agreement that white should not be used for the wood color.

Refresh front site and planter walls by power washing or painting.

6

Update the landscaping, providing more sustainable, low-water palette while maintaining privacy for the residents.

The building and landscape should work together for a more holistic approach.

Figure 2: Original proposal reviewed by ARB on September 18, 2017 (1st review)

7

Figure 3: Proposed re-landscape and removal of existing five eucalyptus trees for new trees and new landscape palette as reviewed by ARB on September 18, 2017

August 20, 2018 ARB Continued Hearing

ARB staff worked with the applicant in guiding the revision of the project so that it could achieve consistency with and appropriately respond to the Board’s comments. The revised proposal presented to the Board for its second review on August 20, 2018 illustrates a number of significant changes that were made to the building color and material choices as well as the landscape in the front with particular consideration given to the eucalyptus trees. The revised color and material palette achieves a modern update while providing contrasting color/material treatment as suggested by the Architectural Review Board. The landscape palette was re-considered and the existing plant palette will be retained since the plant species appear to respond well to the site condition and are mature. For this reason, the applicant decided to augment both planters by adding more of the same plant materials as depicted by the revised landscape plan on Figure 7. This alternative provides a refresh of the existing landscape features that complements the building while providing added privacy to the front ground floor tenants. Since the Board was not inclined to approve removal of all eucalyptus trees, the revised project would only include removal of tree number 3 as it is causing damage to the building due to its proximity to the structure. The remaining four trees will be retained and protected-in-place. As a preventive measure, these trees will be pruned and trimmed to prevent overgrowth and damage to the building.

Intentionally left blank

8

Figure 4: Eucalyptus tree #3 – request for removal due to damage to building

9

Figure 5: Proximity of eucalyptus tree #3 (20 inches) to building/roofline and scar on trunk due to contact with building.

The Board approved the revised project citing its consistency with previously provided comments from the initial meeting and attractive design with project-specific and standard conditions as provided below and reflected in the attached revised STOA. Project-specific conditions of approval:

1. Detail of the wood siding, including installation method shall be provided to staff for review and approval prior to plan check submittal.

2. The ceramic tile proposed at the entrance, landing, and step should possess a matte finish and slop resistant.

3. Sample of the ceramic tile shall be provided to staff for review and approval prior to plan check submittal.

4. Appropriate security measure at the ground level shall be identified and finalized to address safety concerns while complementing the building design prior to plan check submittal.

5. Provide a landscape plan that demonstrates the proposed improvement within the existing planters.

The revised building and landscape designs are illustrated by Figures 6 and 7 as provided by the applicant and have been included in the Planning Commission packet for review.

10

Figure 6: Revised 2nd Street (front) and side elevations as approved by ARB on August 20, 2018

11

Revised Southeast Elevation

Revised Northwest Elevation

12

Figure 7: Revised Landscape Plan and removal of eucalyptus tree #3 as approved by ARB on August 20, 2018.

Figure 8: Site context (approved project with adjoining development)

Neighborhood Compatibility The project site is located within an established, but eclectic neighborhood of older multi-unit residential buildings alongside newer construction spanning different various decades. Building rises two- to four story high often with parking at-grade underneath the building or in a semi-subterranean garage and are designed in variety of architectural styles and with similar site planning. It is common for buildings in this type of neighborhood to undergo façade and/or landscape improvements. The neighborhood is within walking distance to downtown/Third Street Promenade, the beach/pier, Palisades Park as well as transit. The ARB-approved building and landscape updates provide a needed upgrade of a 43- year old building that is current and attractive. Its design and landscape enhancement improve the streetscape along 2nd Street while maintaining the eclectic sensibility of the immediate neighborhood (Figure 8). The approved renovation does not change the mass, scale, height, density level, or site planning of the existing building that would otherwise negatively impact adjoining or nearby developments as the proposal is purely cosmetic. General Plan Consistency 826 2nd Street is designated as Medium Density Housing in the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE). Goal LU1 of the LUCE advocates neighborhood conservation in order to protect, conserve, and enhance the City diverse residential neighborhoods to promote and maintain a high quality of life for all residents. While Policy LU1.4 of Goal LU1 supports the retention of existing structures and older buildings that add to the character of the residential districts. Further, Goal LU13 and

13

Policy LU13.2 seek to preserve community identity that support the diversity of neighborhood, boulevards, and districts within the City and recognize, maintain, and enhance existing neighborhoods as defined by their distinctive character, design and pattern of development and the high-quality environment they provide for a diversity of households, respectively. Furthermore, Goal N4 seeks to ensure compatible design to preserve and enhance neighborhoods, while Policy N4.1 requires new developments be compatible with the existing scale, mass, and character of the residential neighborhood. The proposed façade renovation and landscape enhancement are consistent with the above-mentioned goals and policies of the LUCE in that the remodel seeks to retain an existing housing stock within the Wilshire Montana Neighborhood for diverse households while preserving older neighborhoods. The proposal will enhance the quality of life and enjoyment of the building and outdoor space without negatively impacting the existing mass, scale, and development pattern of the neighborhood. Continual and timely renovation and upgrade of older buildings are also encouraged by the LUCE as it ensures their longevity over time and is a sustainable practice. Appeal Summary On August 30, 2018, the appellant filed a timely appeal of the Architectural Review Board’s approval of the façade renovation and landscape improvements, Case No. 17ARB-0320. The grounds for the appeal as provided in the Appeal Form and supplemental information are provided in Attachment E. In summary, the appellant argues the following:

That the approval was based on incomplete information and new information, including material that were intentionally withheld from ARB and the public for adequate review and consideration;

That the ARB at its initial meeting on September 18, 2018 did not support the project, but at its second meeting on August 20, 2018, approved the project based on the same information;

that only rendered photographs were submitted, not the required elevations on all sides of the buildings;

That the applicant did not comply with tree maintenance, such as pruning, which resulted in damage to the building;

That tree removal should require a replacement tree;

That the revised and approved proposal included removal of all five trees, which was previously denied by the Board;

That the applicant should be required to provide property and landscaping maintenance plan prior to approval;

14

That the conditions of approval are unclear/undefined;

That placing conditions for staff to review and determine compliance undermines the public hearing process;

That the proposed design would drastically alter the integrity, appearance of the street and neighborhood, including experiences of the residents; and

That environmental impact study is required for the alterations.

That the original ARB-approved landscape is protected under law and no governmental agency or department has the authority to support or approve changes that violate the law.

That incorrect building color was identified as beige and that repainting the building all white constitutes “whitewashing” of the building.

Based on the above-mentioned arguments, the appellant requests that the Planning Commission overturn the ARB approval of the façade and landscape improvements and the project should be resubmitted for review by the ARB. The Planning Commission in its de novo review of the appeal must determine whether the following findings pursuant to the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.55.140 can be made to support the requested façade renovation and landscape improvements. 1. The plan for the proposed building or structure is expressive of good taste, good

design, and in general contributes to the image of Santa Monica as a place of beauty, creativity and individuality.

2. The proposed building or structure is not of inferior quality such as to cause the

nature of the local neighborhood or environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value.

3. The proposed design of the building or structure is compatible with developments

on land in the general area. 4. The proposed development is in conformity with the effective guidelines and

standards adopted pursuant to this Chapter and all other applicable ordinances insofar as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved.

Appeal Analysis As summarized above, the appellant has identified many aspects of the review process and has made them the basis of the appeal.

15

Incomplete and Withholding Information The City Planning Division in its reviews of development applications strives to be transparent understanding that discretionary review is a public process. The appellant visited the City Planning office several times prior to both ARB meetings on September 18, 2017 and August 20, 2018 requesting to review the project files. In all instances, the case file containing the submitted application, drawings/plans, photos, staff report, and correspondence were made available for review upon request by any member of the public. The same information was presented to the Architectural Review Board at a public meeting for their review. Prior to the second ARB meeting on August 20, 2018, the applicant expressed a desire to amend the scope of work to include the replacement of existing plywood panels along the rear elevation (along alley) with the same horizontal wood siding proposed along the front elevation in order to achieve consistency throughout the building. The ARB-approved project includes this amendment. The appellant expressed her concern to staff that the public review process was compromised since the added improvement to the rear elevation was made without the public knowledge prior to the meeting and without plans for public review. Staff concluded that the appellant raised a valid concern and issued a revised STOA deleting Condition #1 relating to continuing the wood siding treatment to the rear elevation where there is existing plywood panels. Both STOAs are attached for your review. The revised STOA was sent to both the applicant and appellant on November 14, 2018. ARB Approved a Substantially Similar Project As illustrated by images contained in this report and plans of the original design and the approved design reviewed by the Board on September 18, 2017 and August 20, 2018, respectively, the design of the façade renovation and landscape changes evolved between the first and second meetings. Significant changes were made to address the Board’s comments, such as achieving color contrast between the stucco and wood accent, retention of healthy trees, consider a water efficient landscape palette, and consider a holistic design approach to building and landscape. The revised project was approved by the Board for achieving an improved/attractive design and for its consistency with the design direction and comments provided by the ARB. Lack of Required Elevations Upon review of the ARB application, staff believed the proposal was a simple, straightforward project primarily involving repainting the entire building and replacement of wood panels with wood siding in same location on the front façade. While a landscape plan was provided, staff did not request for line drawings of the building elevations based on the above reason. Staff agrees that, as a matter of clarity, record keeping, and the public review process, elevation drawings can be helpful in reviewing even relatively minor scopes of work in addition to the photo renderings.

16

In the revised design package for the Planning Commission appeal, the applicant has provided a complete submittal packet including elevation (line) drawings, photo rendering, site photos and landscape/irrigation plans to ensure a clear and complete proposal and ease of review. Some of these images are included in the staff report. Lack of Tree Maintenance Program The appellant alleges that the lack of a proper tree maintenance program by the HOA resulted in the request to remove a tree and damage to the building. A tree maintenance program was not required when the project was approved in 1976 and such a program is generally not required particularly for this type of project. It is unclear whether the damage is a direct result of improper tree maintenance. A variety of reasons could have affected the trees’ health, such as proximity of trees to the building, number of trees within a given area/crowding of trees, and type of tree and their growth habit. The applicant maintains that the eucalyptus trees have received continuous maintenance over the years. Tree Replacement is Required The ARB approved the revised landscape plan with the removal of one eucalyptus tree and retention of the remaining four trees (two in each planter). The Board believed in its review that the removal of tree #3 would be in the best interest and safety of the building and its residents since its primary and secondary branches are closest to the building and have caused damage to the structure. In its review authority, the ARB could require a replacement tree through a condition, but did not believe it was necessary given the site condition, context, and maintenance of the remaining trees. On April 23, 2018, ARB staff accompanied Urban Forest Division staff members on a courtesy site visit on the request of the applicant to assess the condition of the trees in relation to the building. It was determined that the applicant’s request to remove a tree (tree #3) causing damage to a building is a reasonable request due to the existing circumstance. The same determination would be issued if a tree in the public right-of-way is or has the potential of causing damage to a nearby building. Urban Forest staff also noted that since the tree’s main trunk has struck one area of the building, there does not appear to be a viable pruning solution to correct the problem. Approved Project Includes Removal of All Five Trees The Board did not support the removal of all trees as originally proposed given that they are healthy and mature species. The ARB approved the removal of one eucalyptus tree and retention of four trees at its meeting on August 20, 2018 and as reflected in the landscape plan. Landscape Maintenance Plan is Required The ARB did not require a landscape maintenance plan for this project. While it is possible this requirement could be imposed on the project/property, it is an uncommon practice and inconsistent with similar and past approvals, particularly for a condominium building since there is an HOA. The Planning Commission may consider this condition if the Commission believes it is appropriate.

17

Conditions of Approval are Unclear/Undefined The project was approved by ARB with nine conditions as reflected in the revised STOA. Conditions 1-5 are project- or site-specific conditions, while conditions 6-9 are standard conditions issued for similar projects. The project-specific conditions are clear, concise, and simple to verify compliance. The ARB in its review authority could ask for the project to return to the Board once the conditions have been addressed, but did not do so for this project with the understanding and assurance that staff is capable of verifying compliance. Staff Review of Conditions of Approval Undermines Hearing Process Staff reviewing and implementing Board- or Commission-issued conditions of approval is a common practice and creates an efficient review process. Moreover, the substance of those conditions are provided to staff at the public hearing and documented in the Statement of Official Action. Design Alters the Integrity of the Building and Appearance of Street/Neighborhood The project site is located in an eclectic neighborhood containing older and newer buildings of various architectural styles. The proposed façade and landscape improvements are purely cosmetic and would not change the density level, building height, size, or location. The design incorporates elements and finishes that exist in the same neighborhood, such as stucco, wood, metal, asphalt shingle, and tile roof. The renovation provides an opportunity to refresh the building and landscape design of an aging structure to ensure its longevity. Environmental Impact Study is Required The proposed project involves exterior renovation, including landscape improvements of an existing building. No expansion is proposed. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides for various categorical exemptions involving changes to existing buildings. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 1, Section 15301, which permits modification to existing facilities that does not involve expansion of the existing use or expansion of more than 50% or 2,500 SF of the existing floor area, whichever is less. The proposed façade remodel and landscape enhancement do not involve expansion of the residential use or expansion of floor area. ARB-approved landscape is protected under law and cannot be modified. It is true that an ARB-approved landscape plan or building design is required to be maintained but not in perpetuity if the property owner seeks to remodel the building and/or modify the landscape design. The ARB process requires that such remodel or change to the building or landscape design, with the exception of properties within the R1 District, are subject to the ARB review process. Depending on the scope of work, the proposed changes could be reviewed/approved at a staff-level or return to the ARB for its review and approval. Changes to building and landscape designs through remodel is a common occurrence throughout the City.

18

The proposed façade renovation and landscape enhancement were deemed significant changes by staff. For this reason, these improvements could not be approved at a staff-level and was returned to the ARB for its review and approval. The ARB, in its review authority, much like the Planning Commission and other City Boards/Commissions, is authorized to approve changes based on the required findings. All findings were made in the affirmative to approve the project. These findings are reflected in the STOA. The approved landscape plan proposes to maintain the existing plant palette with the exception of removal of a eucalyptus tree. The remaining species will be retained in place, but augmented with more plants within the existing palette to achieved an updated, fuller appearance that complements the façade remodel and the site as a whole. The applicant also believes the retention of the existing landscape is a more sensitive and cost-effective proposal. Incorrect building color identification as “beige” and repainting the building white constitutes “whitewashing” of the building. An image of the building is shown on Page 5 of this report and in the submittal packet. Whether the existing color is described as beige or a similar tone, such as sand, cream, ivory, or off-white is irrelevant to the proposal as a new color is proposed. The Board expressed a concern with the original proposal and its color palette when it reviewed the project on September 18, 2017 depicted on Page 6 of the report. Repainting the entire building white, including all existing brown plywood panels was described by some Board members as “whitewashing” the building due to the lack of color contrast that the existing building currently expresses. It was this lack of design clarity that the Board continued the project with comments. The ARB-approved project, while it will be repainted white for the majority of the building surfaces where stucco exists is appropriately handled from a design perspective by introducing new horizontal wood siding in natural finish to provide the needed color contrast and a more clear, cohesive design as illustrated on Page 9. Environmental Analysis

The Planning Commission finds that the façade renovation, including the replacement of existing plywood siding for new horizontal wood siding, repaint of the building and railing, replacement of tile at the entry/steps and landscape enhancement for an existing 21-unit, multi-family residential building are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines under Class 1, Section 15301.

Alternative Actions:

In addition to the recommended action, the Planning Commission could consider the following with respect to the project if supported by the evidentiary record and consistent with applicable legal requirements:

A1. Continue the project for specific reasons, consistent with applicable deadlines and with agreement from the applicant

19

A2. Articulate revised findings and/or conditions to Approve OR Deny, with or without prejudice, the subject application

Conclusion The proposed façade renovation and landscape improvements located at 826 2nd Street was approved by ARB on August 20, 2018 with conditions. The approved project includes repainting the building, replacement of plywood wood siding for new horizontal wood siding, replacement of existing tile at entry/landing/steps, removal of one eucalyptus tree causing damage to the building, and augmenting the two front planters with more plant materials from the existing palette. The overall improvement achieves a needed and attractive update of an aging building while continuing to complement the existing site context and eclectic neighborhood. Prepared by: Rathar Duong, Associate Planner Attachments A. General Plan And Municipal Code Compliance Worksheet B. Draft Statement of Official Action C. Public Notification D. Appeal Form and Supplemental Appeal Statement E. ARB Statement of Official Action (Original and Revised) F. ARB Staff Reports (9-17-2017 and 8-20-2018) G. ARB Minutes of September 18, 2017 and August 20, 2018 Meetings H. Project Plans – Previous and Revised

I. Public Correspondence (for 8-20-2018 ARB Meeting)

20 Attachment A

ATTACHMENT A GENERAL PLAN AND MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE WORKSHEET

Project Location and Permit Processing Time Limits

Project Address: 826 2nd Street

Application Filing Date: August 1, 2017

CEQA Deadline: August 31, 2017

PSA Deadline:

Total Process Review Time (Days):

48 days (from 8-1-17 to hearing date on 9-18-17)

General Plan and Municipal Code Compliance Worksheet

CATEGORY

LAND USE ELEMENT

MUNICIPAL CODE

PROJECT

Permitted Use

N/A

21 Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action

ATTACHMENT B DRAFT STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION

City of Santa Monica City Planning Division

PLANNING COMMISSION STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION

PROJECT INFORMATION CASE NUMBER: 18ENT-0265 Appeal of Architectural Review Board 17ARB-

0320 LOCATION: 826 2nd Street APPLICANT: 826 Second Street Homeowners Association PROPERTY OWNER: 826 Second Street Homeowners Association CASE PLANNER: Rathar Duong, Associate Planner REQUEST: Façade remodel of an existing four-story, 21-unit

condominium building and landscape enhancements within the two planters in front of the building and removal of a eucalyptus tree.

CEQA STATUS: The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of

CEQA, pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

February 6, 2019 Determination Date

Approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions below.

Denied.

Other:

EFFECTIVE DATES OF ACTIONS IF NOT APPEALED:

February 21, 2019

EXPIRATION DATE OF ANY PERMITS GRANTED:

24 months for projects located in the Coastal Zone

Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action

22

LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES*:

6 months

* 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: Architectural Review Board Findings:

A. The plan for the proposed building or structure is expressive of good taste, good design, and in general contributes to the image of Santa Monica as a place of beauty, creativity and individuality in that the proposed white stucco color and natural wood siding further emphasize the building simple form resulting in a light and clean aesthetic that is consistent with the contemporary design as well as achieve added contrast as recommended by the Architectural Review Board. The existing, but enhanced landscape features complement the building by providing varying shades of green that frame and highlight the building as seen from the street. The façade renovation ensure proper maintenance and longevity of an aging building and retention of an existing housing stock.

B. The proposed building or structure is not of inferior quality such as to cause the nature of the local neighborhood or environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value in that the existing building overall design, form, and size will not be modified by the proposal. The new color, wood siding, and improved landscape will update the site and building curb appeal and are complementary to each other.

C. The proposed design of the building or structure is compatible with developments on land in the general area in that the perceived mass and scale are addressed through various design techniques, including use of colors, materials, fenestration pattern, and building form. Although colors and materials will modify the visual appearance of certain design features, they will not negatively impact the existing mass and scale of the building from the existing condition. The new color, wood siding, and enhanced landscape are consistent with nearby buildings and neighborhood context.

D. The proposed development conforms to the effective guidelines and standards adopted pursuant to Chapter 9.55 – Architectural Review Board, and all other applicable ordinances insofar as the location and appearance of the buildings

Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action

23

and structures are involved. Specifically, the location and appearance of the buildings and structures comply with required findings set forth in Chapter 9.55, as documented by the Architectural Review Board, and as conditioned, the plans will fully comply with all applicable regulations prior to the issuance of a building permit.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Project Specific Conditions

1. Detail of the wood siding, including installation method shall be provided to staff

for review and approval prior to plan check submittal.

2. The ceramic tile proposed at the entrance, landing, and step should possess a matte finish and slip resistant.

3. Sample of the ceramic tile shall be provided to staff for review and approval prior to plan check submittal.

4. Appropriate security measure at the ground level shall be identified and finalized to address safety concerns while complementing the building design prior to plan check submittal.

5. Provide a landscape plan that demonstrates the proposed improvement within the existing planters.

6. This approval shall expire when the administrative or discretionary entitlements, not including any Subdivision Map approvals, previously granted for the project have lapsed. If no such entitlements have been granted, this approval shall expire 24 months from its effective date, or 30 months if in the Coastal Zone unless appealed.

7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate

landscape and irrigation plan compliance with the City’s Green Building Ordinance standards (SMMC 8.108) subject to staff approval. Modifications to the landscape plan that effect less than 150 square feet of area may be reviewed and approved by the Staff Liaison to the Board.

8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit a hydrozone matrix shall be included in the landscape and irrigation plans that describes for each hydrozone the following: the square footage, percentage of total landscaped area, plant type and plant form, hydrozone basis, hydrozone description, exposure or micro-climate, irrigation method, irrigation devices (including manufacturer, make and

Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action

24

model), zone pressure, precipitation rates, zone gallons per minute and controller station numbers.

9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that the plans comply with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Significant changes to a project’s design shall require review and approval of the Architectural Review Board. Minor changes may be approved administratively pursuant to all applicable guidelines.

Administrative 10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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 13. This approval is for those plans dated November 2, 2018, 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.

14. 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.

Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action

25

Fees 15. As required by California Government Code Section 66020, the project applicant

is hereby notified that the 90-day period has begun as of the date of the approval of this application, in which the applicant may protest any fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed by the City as part of the approval or as a condition of approval of this development. The fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions are described in the approved plans, conditions of approval, and/or adopted city fee schedule.

COMPLIANCE 16. The applicant authorizes reasonable City inspection of the property to ensure

compliance with the conditions of approval imposed by the City in approving this project and will bear the reasonable cost of these inspections as established by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.72.010 and Resolution No. 9905 (CCS) or any successor legislation thereto. These inspections shall be no more intrusive than necessary to ensure compliance with conditions of approval.

VOTE Ayes: Nays: Abstain: Absent:

Attachment B Draft Statement of Official Action

26

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. _____________________________ _____________________________________ Mario Fonda-Bonardi, 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 Date

Applicant’s Signature

27

ATTACHMENT C PUBLIC NOTIFICATION INFORMATION

Consistent with SMMC 9.20.14.010, notice of the subject application was published in a newspaper of general circulation (Santa Monica Daily Press) and mailed to owners and occupants within 750 feet of the property, at least fourteen days prior to the hearing. In addition, a copy of the notice was posted on the City’s website, on the City’s bulletin board, and copies of the agenda mailed to all City-recognized neighborhood groups prior to the hearing. On October 26, 2018, the appellant and applicant were notified by email of the subject hearing date. The applicant provided the following information regarding attempts to contact area property owners, residents, and recognized neighborhood associations: Neighborhood Associations: NA

Adjacent Neighbors: NA

Community Meetings:

NA

28

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA PLANNING COMMISSION

SUBJECT: 18ENT-0265, Appeal of 17ARB-0320: Architectural Review Board Approval

826 2nd Street APPELLANT: Eileen Carry APPLICANT: Shirin Asgarian, HOA President PROPERTY OWNER: 826 Second Street Homeowners Association

A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission to consider the following request: An appeal of the Architectural Review Board’s approval of Case No. 17ARB-0320 for the façade renovation, including changes in colors and materials of an existing four-story, 21-unit multi-family residential building constructed in 1976 and located in the Medium Density Residential (R3) Zoning District. Also approved is the modification and enhancement of the existing landscaping in front of the building within planters and removal of one eucalyptus tree and replacement of the existing tile at the entry/landing/steps.

DATE/TIME: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2019, AT 7:00 p.m.

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: Rathar Duong, Associate Planner Re: 18ENT-0265 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 and plans, please contact Rathar Duong at (310) 458-8341, or by e-mail at rathar.duong@smgov.net. The Zoning Ordinance is available at the Planning Counter during business hours and on the City’s web site at www.smgov.net . 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 #1, #2, #3, Rapid 3, #7, #8, #9, #10R, and #18 service City Hall and the Civic Center area. The Expo Line terminus is at Colorado Avenue and Fourth Street, a short walk to City Hall. Public parking is available in front of City Hall, on Olympic Drive and in the Civic Center Parking Structure (validation free). 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.

29

ESPAÑOL Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la División de Planificación al número (310) 458-8341. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Roxanne Tanemori, AICP Acting Planning Manager

30

ATTACHMENT D

Appeal Form & Supplemental Appeal Statement

826 2nd Street

33

ATTACHMENT G

ARB Minutes of September 18, 2017 & August 20, 2018 Meetings

826 2nd Street

34

ATTACHMENT H

Project Plan – Previous & Revised

826 2nd Street

35

ATTACHMENT I

Public correspondence for August 20, 2018 ARB Meeting

826 2nd Street