Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS LITIGATION MUNICIPAL ADVOCACY
11611 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD, SUITE 900
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
Tel: (310) 209-8800 Fax: (310) 209-8801
WEB: www.AGD-LandUse.com
WILLIAM F. DELVAC DIRECT DIAL: (310) 254-9050
E-MAIL: [email protected]
April 30, 2015
Via Email and U.S. Mail
Honorable Planning Commissioners City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Case Number 13UP-007, 426 Palisades Avenue
Dear Honorable Commissioners:
Our firm represents Steven Stogel and Cheryl Melinda Allen (“Homeowners”) in connection with the Homeowners’ appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s determination (“Determination”) dated July 17, 2013, denying a Use Permit for a proposed curb cut on their property located and 426 Palisades Avenue (“Property”). An appeal of that decision was filed July 31, 2013 (and is incorporated by this reference). The Staff Report (“Staff Report”) on the appeal was issued on October 15, 2014, for a hearing scheduled before this Commission that was continued to May 20, 2015.
The application for the curb cut was first filed in March 2013. A curb cut is in keeping with the character of the area. The vast majority of properties that can accommodate curb cuts have them. The curb cut would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Finally, the City considers the Property historic and, as such, the curb cut is consistent on an overall basis with the General Plan.
1. Suitability of the Property Proposed Curb Cut. A Use Permit for a curb cut does not require a demonstration that the Property has a special circumstance that necessitates a curb cut. Rather, the issue whether the curb cut creates an unusual or special circumstance that results in an adverse impact. The Staff Report has inverted this finding. In fact, this curb cut only results in beneficial impacts. See Attachment A, Section A.
ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP Hon. Planning Commissioners April 30, 2015 Page 2
2. Compatibility with the Neighborhood. The curb cut is clearly compatible with the existing pattern of development in the neighborhood. In addition to the Property, there are a total of 29 properties along Palisades Avenue between 1st Court and 7th Street with sufficient street frontage and land area that can physically accommodate a curb cut and driveway from Palisades Avenue to the rear of the parcel for onsite parking. Of these 29 properties, a total of 22 properties have curb cuts which represents 76 percent of properties. See Attachment A, Section B.
3. Consistency with General Plan. The Staff Report focuses only on the LUCE. However, the Property is identified as a historic resource on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. The General Plan gives equal priority to Historic Preservation Element as it does to the LUCE. With the curb cut approval, the Homeowners will restore and Landmark this architecturally significant home that would add to the City’s rich heritage of historical buildings. See Attachment A, Section C.
4. Condition of Alley. The Staff Report also makes much of the suitability of the alley. However, this alley is one of the more over-utilized allies in the City, is in a poorly maintained condition and state of disrepair, and often is an obstacle course with scores of trash and recycling bins lining the alley and sometimes left in the vehicular travel way, and often includes cars parked illegally in front of garages for homes on Palisades Avenue. These facts have been confirmed by Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. “Gibson”) in its Alley Utilization Report attached to this letter as Attachment B.
This Commission has the opportunity take a step back and look at the bigger picture. There are various inaccuracies in the Staff Report’s findings. See Attachment C, Gibson Review of Findings. This curb cut, just like others recently granted, is appropriate. The trees are protected. See Attachment D, Approval of Forest Department. Parking is reduced on an over-crowded street. Trips on an over-utilized ally would be reduced. Quite importantly, the curb cut is part of the Homeowners’ overall plan to rehabilitate one of the oldest houses in this part of Santa Monica and to have the Property designated as a City Landmark. See Attachment E, Photograph of House.
ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP Hon. Planning Commissioners April 30, 2015 Page 3
We respectfully urge this Commission to grant the appeal and approve a Use Permit for the proposed plan set forth as Attachment F.
Very truly yours,
William F. Delvac
cc: Brad Misner, City of Santa Monica
ATTACHMENTS
A. Summary B. Gibson Report re Alley Utilization C. Gibson Review of Findings D. Forest Department Approval E. Photograph of House F. Proposed Curb Cut
ATTACHMENT A
The Staff Report concurs that several issues cited in the Determination’s findings have been resolved by the Homeowners, including the Proposed Plan attached hereto adequately protects the tree in the City’s and that there is no longer a hazardous vehicular obstruction issue.
The Staff Report concludes that there are three remaining findings at issue: (A) the Property is not suitable for the curb cut; (B) the curb cut is not compatible with the neighborhood; and (C) the curb cut is not in substantial conformance with the General Plan.
A. The Property Is Suitable For A Curb Cut
• A use permit such as the proposed curb cut does not require a demonstration that the subject property has a special circumstance that necessitates a curb cut, but rather whether the curb cut creates an unusual or special circumstance that results in an adverse impact.
• The Staff Report has inverted this finding. In this case, the curb cut would not result in an identified adverse impact of the Property or the neighborhood. On the contrary, the curb cut would benefit Palisades Avenue.
• Access from the alley is physically possibly, but the mere availability of an alley for vehicle access to an on-site garage does not either (i) preclude approval of a curb cut, or (ii) constitute a basis for a denial of this appeal.
B. The Proposed Curb Cut Is Compatible With The Neighborhood
• Street parking on Palisades Avenue has been publically acknowledged by the City to be “overcrowded” as reported by the City in a public meeting on December 23, 2014.
• The Staff Report concluded that the curb cut is not compatible with the neighborhood.
• The Staff Report states the alley is both “underutilized” and is “suitable access.” Neither statement is factually correct. See the Gibson memo, dated April 24, 2015, set forth as Attachment C, Review of Findings.
• Twenty nine houses physically have the side yard to have a garage on site. Twenty two (76%) of these homes do.
• More than 40 % of the homes on Palisades Avenue between 4th and 7th have curb cuts. The 40% threshold was cited as a test of compatibility for the approved curb cuts on 316 Adelaide Drive on March 13, 2013 (13UP-001) and 538 Marguerita Avenue on June 11, 2013 (12UP-009).
• There are 24 homes on Palisades Avenue that do not have the side yards wide enough to have a garage on site that would connect to a curb cut.
• As of July 11, 2014, the Urban Forest Master Plan was changed at the Homeowners’ urging to allow a curb cut for the Property. See Attachment D.
• A curb cut reduces available street frontage for parking, but the Homeowners have children who drive, and up to four cars can park on site, thereby adding frontage for other street parking.
• This alley is one of the more over-utilized alleys in the City, is in poorly maintained condition, in a state of disrepair, often is an obstacle course with scores of trash and recycling bins lining the alley, sometimes left in the vehicular travel way, and often includes cars parked illegally in front of garages for homes on Palisades Avenue. See Attachment B and our letter dated July 31, 2014.
• The Staff Report defends access as suitable from 4th Street as being 200’ (although in fact the distance is 280’) to the Property’s garage and 305 feet from 4th Street.
• The portion of alley access from 4th Street to the Property’s garage passes 24 garages and 30 trash bins.
• The trash bins remain in the alley 24 hours/7 days/365 days a year, for the weekly collections.
• The alley is not a suitable access to the Property.
C. The Proposed Curb Cut is Consistent with the General Plan
• The Staff Report focuses solely on consistency with the LUCE.
• It fails to take into consideration the historic preservation element.
• The Property is listed on the City’s inventory of historic resources as 3B and 5B, and, therefore, must be treated as a historic resource for purpose of determining General Plan consistency.
• The Homeowners will restore and Landmark this historically and architecturally significant home that would add to the City’s rich heritage of historical buildings.
• Historic preservation is an optional additional element permitted under state law.
• Santa Monica has decided to prepare and adopt a Historic Preservation Element to focus attention on the preservation of historic resources and devote special consideration to planning involving these resources.
• With the preparation and adoption of the Historic Preservation Element, historic preservation policies will become equal to policies in any of the mandated elements, including the LUCE.
• The preservation of historic buildings enhances the quality of life in Santa Monica. It improves the quality of the built environment, encourages respect and appreciation for the community’s history and culture, maintains the character of the City, and contributes to the City’s economic stability.
• The Project is overall in substantial conformance with the City’s General Plan.
• The Homeowners will, if a curb cut is approved, promptly proceed to file for designation of the Property as a Landmark and a Certificate of Appropriateness as a total, sensitive restoration of 426 Palisades is the goal of the Homeowners.
523 W. 6t h St reet , Su i t e 1234 Los Angeles, CA 90 0 14 p. 213.68 3.0 0 8 8 f. 213.68 3.0 0 33
MEMORANDUM TO: Steven Stogel CC: Bill Delvac, Armbruster Goldsmith & Delvac LLP FROM: Patrick A. Gibson, P.E., PTOE Richard Gibson, LEED Green Associate DATE: April 24, 2015 RE: Montana Place North (Alley) Utilization Summary Ref: J1339 Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. was asked to conduct a study of Montana Place North between 7th Street and 4th Street in Santa Monica, California (subject alley) to determine if the alley is over-utilized. The study used field observations and data collection efforts to compare the utilization of the subject alley to five neighboring alleys with similar land use and activity characteristics. The following is a brief summary overview of the study and the results. A more detailed analytical memo will be provided at a future date. STUDY AREA The subject alley was compared to five nearby alleys with similar characteristics:
Montana Place North from 4th Street and 1st Court
The alley between Palisades Avenue and Alta Avenue from 7th Street to 4th Street
The alley between Palisades Avenue and Alta Avenue from 4th Street to 1st Court
The alley between Alta Avenue and Marguerita Avenue from 7th Street to 4th Street
The alley between Alta Avenue and Marguerita Avenue from 4th Street to 1st Court
FIELD OBSERVATIONS/DATA COLLECTION Field observations and data collection were conducted for the following components for each alley in the study area, including the subject alley:
Count of land uses by type Number of garages/parking spaces Number and type of trash receptacles Width of alley and effective width given building setbacks and trash receptacles
Mr. Steven Stogel April 24, 2015 Page 2
24-hour traffic counts at each end of every study alley Parking occupancy sweeps to determine parking demand Length of alley
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Based on the data collection and field observations, the following preliminary results can be reported:
Traffic volumes on the subject alley are higher than on all other comparable alleys
There are more garages and parking spaces per foot on the subject alley than any other study alley
Parking occupancy is higher along the subject alley than along any other study alley
While the number of trash receptacles is higher in some of the study alleys, the subject alley has more high-volume commercial and multi-family trash receptacles that encroach further into the alley than the regular sized trash receptacles found in the other study alleys
Overall, the subject alley is more heavily utilized than the study alleys from a traffic and parking standpoint. The high-volume trash receptacles encroach on the alley, reducing its effective width more than on the other study alleys. Also, the heavy utilization of the on-street parking on Palisades Avenue and Montana Avenue on each side of the alley that forces additional trips through the alley searching for parking. The heavy utilization of on-street parking was confirmed by City Staff in a residential parking permit informational meeting held on December 28, 2014 that showed peak parking occupancy rates over 90% along Palisades Avenue, which is very high occupancy for a residential street. While there is no “official” definition of “over-utilized” when alley activity levels are described, the field observations and data collection definitively show that the subject alley experiences more intense utilization than the comparable nearby alleys.
523 W. 6t h St reet , Su i t e 1234 Los Angeles, CA 90 0 14 p. 213.68 3.0 0 8 8 f. 213.68 3.0 0 33
MEMORANDUM TO: Steven Stogel CC: Bill Delvac, Armbruster Goldsmith & Delvac LLP FROM: Patrick A. Gibson, P.E., PTOE Richard Gibson, LEED Green Associate DATE: April 24, 2015 RE: Review of Findings in Staff Report Use Permit 13-007 for a Proposed New Curb Cut at 426 Palisades Avenue Santa Monica, California Ref: J1339 Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. (GTC) was asked to review the Planning Commission Report dated October 22, 2014 regarding Appeal 13-008 of the Zoning Administrator’s denial of Use Permit 13-007 for a new curb cut on Palisades Avenue. This memo provides a summary of our review of this and prior documents pertaining to the Use Permit Application. The Staff Report contains a number of facts and findings that should be verifiable with simple site surveys or counts. The following provides a list of facts and findings from the staff report that GTC has reviewed and found to be inaccurate: Finding “However, a curb cut does not allow for additional parking capacity on-site”
Correction In this case, parking spaces would be gained overall in that the owners of 426 Palisades have proposed parking in the rear half of the property both in the new garage and on the driveway behind a gate. Parking will not occur on the front lawn area as prohibited by code.
The proposed design will net at least one net new parking space as the garage will be reconstructed with the same capacity as exists today and the two spaces available behind the gate on the proposed driveway will offset the one on-street space lost.
Mr. Steven Stogel April 24, 2015 Page 2 Finding “The existing garage, which has always been accessed from the rear alley, is located between 4th Street and 7th Street, approximately 200 feet east of 4th Street.”
Correction The garage is located 305 feet from 4th Street and the western edge of the property line is approximately 225 feet from 4th Street.
Finding “The alley is a residential alley through most of the block with single-family homes adjacent along the north side of the alley and multi-family buildings along the south side of the alley.”
Correction Three of the four neighboring properties on the north side of the alley between the subject property and 4th Street are multi-family developments with garages on the alley. On the north side of the alley between 426 Palisades Avenue and 4th Street, there are 11 garage doors for four properties. The south side of the alley contains commercial uses as well as multi-family buildings.
Finding “The alley is not overly utilized as many of the multi-family buildings in the vicinity of the subject property, including 415, 426, 511, 521, 529 and 605 Montana Avenue, do not provide vehicular access to the subject alley.”
Correction 426, 511, 529, and 605 Montana Avenue do provide vehicular access to the subject alley. In fact, eight of the 11 multi-family buildings do provide vehicular access to the subject alley with a total of 47 garages or parking spaces on the south side of the alley alone. This does not include the commercial property at the corner of the alley & 7th Street, which provides one driveway and an additional eight parking spaces accessed directly from the alley. On the south side of the alley there are a combined 55 parking spaces/garages and one commercial driveway.
Finding “The property directly across from the alley (427 Montana Avenue) from the subject property is also setback from the alley allowing additional space for vehicles to maneuver onto the subject property.”
Correction The building at 427 Montana Avenue is not setback from the alley; it is directly on the alley line and in line with the other buildings on that side of the alley. The portion of this
Mr. Steven Stogel April 24, 2015 Page 3
property that is setback is the parking area, which does not align with the subject property’s garage door and, thus, provides no additional maneuvering room onto the subject property. The setback portion of 427 Montana Avenue consists of a private parking lot and provides ingress/egress to the garages for that property located off the alley. Further, the owners of 426 Palisade Avenue cannot rely on private property to provide adequate maneuvering room to access their property, nor can they rely on that setback as a permanent condition for the neighboring property. Redevelopment of 427 Montana Avenue may not include a setback for the parking area and may be constructed similar to the rest of the multi-family buildings on this section of Montana Avenue.
Finding “In these cases, since street parking, landscaping, open space, and broken curb lines were in existence, staff did not believe the granting of the use permit would represent a substantial change to the subject property or neighborhood.” “However, staff does not believe the new curb cut is consistent with the LUCE or in character with the neighborhood on Palisades Avenue”
Correction These seem like conflicting statements. Palisades Avenue has street parking, landscaping, residential driveways, open space and broken curb lines today; therefore, the use permit will not substantially change the character of the subject property or the neighborhood as concluded in the first statement above. The second statement, which is part of the conclusion, does not support staff’s original statement.
CONCLUSION Based on our review of the various staff reports and appeals related to the curb cut application for 426 Palisades Avenue, GTC is concerned that a number of the factual statements made to support denial of the application are inaccurate and should be updated before considering the recommendations of staff. Specifically, the staff report underestimates the utilization of the alley by multi-family developments and commercial uses, overstates the maneuvering ability in the alley, and does not address the issue of trash receptacles that take much of the alley’s real estate. Further, the staff report seems to contain conflicting statements regarding the influence of curb cuts on the character of the subject property and the neighborhood.
