SR-061290-6R
. .
e
/j02~tJ{) :r
e
(o-~
C/ED:PB:DKW:WW:ww
pc/trans5
Council Mtg: June 12, 1990
Santa Monica, califJJ'n1a.2 1990
TO: Mayor and City council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Certification of statement of Official Action To Deny
an Appeal and Uphold Planning Commission Denial of
Development Review 88-005, Conditional Use Permit
88-019, Variance 88-012, Reduced parking Permit 89-009,
for Development of a Three story, 89,000 Square Foot
Mixed Commercial Office Building Constructed over a
Four story Level Subterranean parking Garage Located on
the Northwest Corner of pica Boulevard and Ocean Avenue
in the RVC (Residential-Visitor Commercial) District.
The Appeal also Pertained to EIR 897 Which was Not
Acted Upon by the Commission. Applicant/Appellant:
Sage Institute representing Ocean Avenue Plaza
Associates.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the city Council certify the attached
statement of Official Action for the above referenced appeal.
BACKGROUND
After a public hearing, and careful review of the record and
staff recommendation, the city Council denied the appeal and
upheld the Planning commission I s denial of Development Review
88-005, Conditional Use Permit 88-019, Variance 88-012 and
Reduced Parking Permit 89-009, for development of a three story,
89,000 square foot mixed commercial office building constructed
over a four story level subterranean parking garage at 1828 Ocean
Avenue. The Council took no action on the EIR.
- 1 -
(p-R
JUM 1 2 \990
e
e
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Council certify the
attached statement of Official Action.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
D. Kenyon Webster I principal planner
Wanda williams, Associate Planner
Planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
Attachment: A. statement of Official Action
WW:ww
pc/trans5
OS/29/90
- 2 -
e
e
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NUMBER:
DR 88-005, CUP 88-019, RPP 89-009, EIR 897
LOCATION:
1828 Ocean Avenue
APPLICANT/
APPELLANT: Sage Institute Representing Ocean Avenue Plaza
Associates
REQUEST:
Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Develop-
ment Review 88-005, Conditional Use Permit 88-
019, Variance 88-012, Reduced Parking Permit 89-
009, for Development of a Three story, 89,000
Square Foot Mixed Commercial Office Building Con-
structed over a Four Story Level Subterranean
parking Garage Located on the Northwest Corner of
pico Boulevard and Ocean Avenue in the RVC
(Residential-Visitor Commercial) District. The
Appeal also Pertains to EIR 897 Which was not
Acted Upon by the Commission. Applicant/
Appellant: Sage Institute representing Ocean
Avenue Plaza Associates
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
04/24/90
Date.
Approved project based on the following findings
and subject to the conditions below.
Denied.
X Other. Denied Appeal, Upheld Planning Commission
Denial of project. The Council took No Action on
the EIR.
FINDINGS
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS
1. The physical location, size and massing of structures on
the site and the proposed building uses within the project
are incompatible with surrounding land uses and struc-
tures, do not reflect the style, character and recent pat-
tern of development along the west side of Ocean Avenue in
the Oceanfront District. The project lacks an appropriate
level of articulation and does not provide upper floor
setbacks that are consistent with other recently approved
- 1 -
e
e
project. The proposed amount of office floor area is not
consistent with recent city approvals or with the general
intent of the RVC District and could potentially adversely
alter the growth and direction of visitor and recreational
uses in the Oceanfront District. The project could ad-
versely impact residential uses located to the north and
south and does not conform with General Plan Policy Sec-
tions 1.5.1, 1.5.3, 1.5.4 and 1.5.8.
2. The rights-of-way may have difficul ty in accommodating
autos and pedestrians, including parking and access, in
that the location of the subterranean garage driveway
aisle along Pico Boulevard may result in an increased
level of vehicle and pedestrian impacts.
3. The proj ect is inconsistent with the intent of the RVC
District as described in the Municipal Code and General
Plan, in that the project does not propose adequate
visitor and pedestrian oriented uses as provided in
Municipal Code Section 9015.1 and General Plan Objective
1.5.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The proposed use is one conditionally permitted within the
subject district but does not adequately comply with the
intent of Municipal Code Section 9015.1 and General Plan
Objective 1.5, to provide expanded visitor accommodations
and related uses in the Oceanfront District.
2. The proposed use would impair the integrity and character
of the district in which it is to be established or lo-
cated, in that the surrounding neighborhood contains a
mixture of hotel, service retail and residential uses. The
primary use of the site for offices may establish an un-
desirable precedent for similar growth and development in
other areas of the Oceanfront District and may contribute
to an overconcentration of uses that are not visitor or
recreation oriented uses encouraged in Land Use Objective
1.5.
3. The subject parcel is not physically suitable for the type
of land use being proposed, in that the site is located
adjacent to low scale residential uses along Vicente Ter-
race and pico Boulevard that would be adversely affected
by development of a 3 storY/45 foot high commercial use
building. The project site is located adjacent to a high-
ly visible street intersection that should serve to pro-
mote land uses that comply more precisely with Municipal
Code Section 9015.1 and General plan Objective 1.5.
4. The proposed use would not be compatible with existing and
permissible land uses within the district and the general
area in which the proposed use is to be located, in that
as indicated above, the surrounding area contains residen-
tial,service retail and hotel uses.
- 2 -
e
e
5. Public access to the proposed use is inadequate, in that
the location of the subterranean parking driveway aisle
could increase vehicle and pedestrian impacts near the
intersection of Pi co Boulevard and Ocean Avenue.
6. The physical location or placement of the use on the site
is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, in that
adequate building setbacks are not provided, the building
height and level of articulation are unacceptable, the
location of visitor oriented uses is inadequate and the
building scale and mass appear visually intrusive.
7. The proposed use is inconsistent with the goals, Objec-
tives, and pOlicies of the General Plan, as discussed
above.
8. The proposed use would be detrimental to the public inter-
est, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare, in
that the location of the partially enclosed parking garage
may result in safety or health impacts for sensitive resi-
dents and may also create objectionable sounds, odors or
views.
9. The proposed use may establish a precedent for development
of similar office uses along Ocean Avenue and may lead to
an overconcentration of uses that are not permitted by
right in the Rve District. The size, scale and mass of
the building and intended office uses are inconsistent
with the Zoning Code and General Plan and may discourage
pedestrian oriented uses in the Oceanfront District.
VARIANCE FINDINGS
l. There are not special circumstances or exceptional charac-
teristics 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 vicini ty under an
identical zoning classification, in that the l.05 acre
parcel contains adequate parcel width and depth to accom-
modate the type of development permitted by code. The
slightly irregular portions of the parcel do not restrict
or interfere with the layout or location of buildings,
parking, landscaping or other site elements.
2. The granting of the variance will be detrimental or in-
jurious to the property or improvements in the general
vicinity and district in which the property is located, in
that physical hardship or land use difficulties do not
exist to warrant granting of the setback modification.
Approval of the variance will establish a precedent for
future building construction along the west side of Ocean
Avenue.
- 3 -
e
e
3. The granting of a variance will be contrary to or in con-
flict with the general purposes and intent of this Chap-
ter, or to the goals, objectives, and policies of the
General Plan, in that the intent of the General Plan and
zoning Code are to ensure that uniformity of building
design, setbacks and other development standards are ap-
plied in a fair manner. The location of the site in the
Oceanfront District, the size of the parcel, the property
width and frontage along two streets and the depth and
permitted height and FAR do not create or impose an undue
hardship or burden for the property owner.
4. The variance would impair the integrity and character of
the district in which it is to be located, in that a
precedent for future development in the Oceanfront Dis-
trict will be established. Uniform aesthetic landscaping
setbacks and open space will not be provided on the site.
5. The strict application of the provisions of Chapter 10 of
the City of Santa Monica comprehensive Land Use and Zoning
Ordinance would not result in unreasonable deprivation of
the use or enjoyment of the property as described above.
REDUCED PARKING PERMIT FINDINGS
1. A sufficient number of parking spaces are not provided to
meet the parking demands of employees, customers and visi-
tors of the site in that while the number of spaces pro-
vided exceeds the Code requirement, the demand for retail
and restaurant parking during tourist seasonal periods may
exceed the available supply.
VOTE
To Deny Appeal, Uphold Planning Commission Denial of Project:
Ayes: Abdo, Finkel, Genser, Jennings, Katz, Reed, Zane
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under
the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Or-
dinance, 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 1400. This does not supersede Public
Resources Code Section 21167, which governs the time within which
judicial review of the City's acts or decisions in connection
with the California Environmental Quality Act must be sought.
- 4 -
e
e
I hereby certify that this statement of Official Action accurate-
ly reflects the final determination of the City Council of the
City of Santa Monica.
~~1~
~gnature ~
6/13/90
date
Clarice E. Johnsen, Clty Clerk
print name and title
PC/stccdr5
WW:ww
OS/29/90
- 5 -