The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-5-A (5) IftJ Z ~ (/CJ 75 ~". ~ C/ED:PB:DKW:SL council Mtg: March 28, 1989 Santa Monica, California TO: Mayor and city Council S- .-r A- APR 1 1 1989 FROM: city Staff SUBJECT: Appeal of planning Commission Approval of Development Review 441, Variance 88-016, EIA 870, 1919 Santa Monica Boulevard to Construct a Four-story, 46,832 square-foot Office Building with 158 Parking Spaces provided On-grade and within a Two-level Subterranean Parking Garage in the C4 zone Applicant: Appellants: 1919 Associates council Member Ken Genser and 1919 Associates INTRODUCTION This report recommends that the City Council deny both appeals and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of and conditions for Development F~view 441, Variance 88-016 and certification of Environmental Impact Report, EIA 870, to permit construction of a four-story, 46,832 square-foot office building with 158 parking spaces. At the meeting of January 18, 1989, the Planning Commission approved the project with conditions on a 6-1 vote. Council Member Genser is appealing the approval on the basis that the project "will have adverse environmental consequences, the proj ect is not deserving of a variance under the tenns of the Zoning Ordinance and the EIR is potentially inadequate. tt The applicant is appealing two of the project's conditions of approval, namely, that: 1) the floor area shall be reduced from 51, 832 square feet to 46, 832 square feet; and 2) circulation - 1 - s-~~ #I--B- APR 1 1 1989 AnR 4 -- lS8t- ...... between the surface level parking garage shall be provided on-site. included in Attachment A. area and the subterranean The letters of appeal are BACKGROUND The development is proposed to be constructed on a 22,500 square-foot parcel on the northwest corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and 20th street. The project was originally proposed to he four stories, 51,832 square feet with 5,622 square feet of covered surface parking, 6,366 square feet of ground floor retail space and 39,844 square feet of upper level office space. The applicant is now proposing an all-office scenario with no retail, based on the lower traffic generation rates associated with office rather than retail uses. At the Planning commiss "'n meeting of January 18, 1989, the project was approved with two major conditions: that the project be reduced by 5,000 square feet of rentable floor area and that the parking be redesigned to provide on-site circulation between the surface and subterranean parking levels. A site Review Permit is required to permit the development of a four story/56 I structure with an F.A.R. of 2.5. The development of a three story/45I structure with an F.A.R. of 2.0 is permitted by Development Review Permit. The originally proposed development has a height of four stories/56' and an F .A.R. of 2.3, which consists of 2.05 F.A.R. attributable to commercial space and .25 F.A.R. attributable to covered, surface parking. - 2 - with the imposed reduction of 5,000 square feet of project area, the total F.A.R. decreases to 2.08. ANALYSIS variance The project is sUbject to consideration under the previous zoning code. The proposed project is consistent with all code requirements and in conformity with the General Plan, wi th the exception that 40% of the provided parking consists of compact parking spaces. A variance was approved by the Planning Commission as part of the application, since compact parking required a variance under the previous zoning code. The current code permits 40% compact spaces as a matter of right. Numerous projects were approved under the previous zoning ordinance which included 40% compact parking spaces. Environmental Impact Report The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzed various areas of potential project-related impacts, including: land use, traffic and circulation, noise, shadows, sewer service and neighborhood effects. The EIR determined that no long-term, significant impacts would result from the project. The EIR proposed a number of mitigation measures which are included in the conditions of approval for the project. - 3 - Traffic and Circulation Five intersections were analyzed in the EIR to determine detailed level of service and volume/capacity ratios during the morning and evening peak hours in accordance with the Critical Movement Analysis method of intersection capacity analysis. The EIR determined that for the originally proposed proj ect of 51,832 square feet with ground floor retail uses and upper level office uses, there would be a significant traffic impact at 20th street and Santa Monica Boulevard under unmitigated conditions. The traffic impact would be reduced to an insignificant level with the following mitigation measures: Restripe Santa Monica Boulevard east of 20th street to accoInInodate a total of six lanes within the existing pavement width. The restr_~ing would create an exclusive right-turn pocket on the westbound Santa Monica approach to 20th Street. Restripe Santa Monica Boulevard west of 20th Street to shift existing lanes southward within existing pavement width to realign with the restriping east of 20th Street. The analysis showed that assuming the implementation of the above mitigation measures, the projected volume/capacity ratio would be improved from 0.99 to 0.93 during the evening peak hour, thus not only reducing the traffic impact at that intersection to a - 4 - nonsignificant level, but actually improving its operational capacity. All-Office Scenario and Related Traffic Issues The developer has volunteered and the Planning Commission has required that the project be limited to office uses only with no retail activity in order to further reduce traffic impacts. An Addendum to the EIR has been prepared (please refer to Attachment G) to evaluate the potential traffic impacts associated with a solely office building. The Addendum determined that an all-office project alternative at the full scale of 51,832 square feet would not create any significant traffic impacts and would not require any mitigation measures to alleviate project-related traffic impacts. The applicant is requesting that the mi tigatic - measures of restriping Santa Monica Boulevard to the east and west of 20th Street, if requested by the Parking and Traffic Engineer, not be imposed since there will be no significant traffic impacts created by the all-office alternative. The Planning Commission imposed this mitigation measure on the reduced, all-office alternative in order to improve traffic conditions. A more detailed description and analysis of the project and environmental issues is provided in the Planning Commission staff report (please refer to Attachment C). - 5 - APPEAL ISSUES Reduction of Building Area The first basis of the applicant's appeal is that the Planning Commission imposed a condition of approval that the project be reduced by 5,000 square feet of rentable floor area. This condition would reduce the overall project area, including covered, surface parking, to 46,832 square feet and the office area to 41,210 square feet, while reducing the F.A.R. to 2.08. As noted above, the EIR determined that there would be no significant, project-related, traffic impacts as a result of construction of a 51,832 square-foot, all-office development. Although the project would be reduced nearly to an F.A.R. which does not require Site Review, the Planning Commission directed that the project could still be four stories, which does ~equire a site Review Permit. On-Site Circulation The second basis of the applicant's appeal is the condition that the project be redesigned to provide on-site circulation between the surface and subterranean parking levels. This redesign would effect a good planning principle in that all turning movements between levels of parking would be accomplished on-site. In staff's judgement, the project should support all such activity on-site without requiring a vehicle to exit onto the public right-of-way in order to move between levels of parking. - 6 - BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the Council deny both appeals and approve Development Review 441 and Variance 88-016, and certify EIA 870 as approved by Planning commission with the findings and conditions contained in the January 18, 1989 Planning commission statement of Official Action. Prepared by: Shari Laham, Associate Planner Paul Berlant, Director of Planning Attachments: A. B. c. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. SL PC/CCDR441 03/22/89 Letters of Appeal from Council Member Genser and 1919 Associates Planning commission statement of Official Action, dated 1/18/89 Planning commission staff Report, dated 1/18/89 Protest Letters, dated 3/13/89 Memo from city Parking and Traffic Engineer, dated 1/18/89 Letter received from Applicant's Representa- tive, dated 1/17/89 Addendum to EIR for All-Office Scenario Traffic Study Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of 1/18/89 Resolution of Certification of EIR Addendum to EIR, dated November, 1988 Final Environmental Impact Report No. 870 Plot Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations and Sections - 7 - Attachment II A" . . ) --: - - . '",,---! - -" ~. ~I"""J) ~-"....I L..;.... f) 1..- I r;XlL~ '....'--" --;; J 1919 ASSOCIATES TY or : ,. - '. HCN:':~ '~L. 2811 Wilshire Blvd., Sui te- 605' . -, --: ''- Santa Monica, CA 90403 'bS' ,JAN 23 P 2 '03 VIA MESSENGER January 23, 1989 Ms. Shari Laham Associate Planner Santa Monica Planning Division Santa Monica, CA 90401 Re: DR 441 Address: 1919 Santa Monica Blvd. Applicant: 1919 Associates Our File No.: 459.3 Dear Ms. Laham: By this letter, we appeal the Planning Commission's conditions to approval of DR No. 441. Specifically, 1919 Associates objects to th~ conditions that (I) the floor area of the building be reduced by 5,000 square feet and (2) any circulation between the surface level parking area and the ramp to the subterranean garage be accommodated on the site. .. Enclosed please find our check no. 1252 in the amount of $100, payable to the City of Santa Monica, as payment of the fee for filing this appeal. The basis for this appeal is that the floor area of the covered surface parking, while included for purposes of calculating the floor area ratio, does not contribute to the intensity of the proposed development. The appellant reserves the right to present further analysis in support of this appeal. s, Ene. A 1tocJ,f"Ylb'"\ + '1 A~' SANTA MONICA 1685 Mam Street. Santa ~1omca. Califorma 9040 I Ken Genser CounClI Member I ~ I \', + ~).... "i ~II[ February It 1989 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa Monicat CA 90401 ~ -")::..- - ---l ::-< ,0 ::.., Dear Mayor and Councll Members: -r\ rn c:J t .-0 - (... '" - -~ :.- -u ThlS letter shall serve as my request to appeal the decislon of ~ the Planning Commission to approve DR 441t VAR 88-016, and ErA 870 ~ relating to a proposed office development at 1919 Santa Monica Blvd. 3: 10 ~1:Z: -:;0 -> The reasons for filing thlS appeal are because the projectt as approved will have adverse environmental consequencest the project is not deserving of a var,ance under the terms of the Zoning Ordin- ance and the EIR is potentially inadequate. ~relY~' ~ ~SER COUNCIL MEM R ~ KG:mJ cc: Paul Berlantt Planning Director ~ '!> ('~' ~'~"1 i5 A-+ttXhrren+ 1/ B 1/ STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION PROJECT NUMBER: DR 441, VAR 88-016, EIA 870 LOCATION: 1919 Santa Monica Boulevard APPLICANT: 1919 Associates REQUEST: To construct a four-story, office/retail structure with two levels of subterranean zone. 51,832 square-foot surface parking and parking in the C4 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 1/18/89. Date. X certification of the EIR and approval of project based on the following findings and subject to the conditions below. Denied. other. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS 1. The development is consistent with the findings and pur- pose of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below. 2. The physical location and placement of the proposed struc- ture on the .i te i. compatible wi th and relates harmo- niOUSly to surrounding sit.. and neighborhoods in that the structure will axceed required setbacks on all sides and is of a compatible height and scale with surrounding development. The site is currently vacant and graded: therefor., no landscaping currently exists on site. The develop1l8nt includes a 15 r strip of landscaping along Twentieth street and potential landscapinq on terraces facing Santa Monica Boulevard. 3. The existinq and/or proposed riqhts-ot-way and facilities for both pedestrian and automobile traffic will be ade- quate to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro- posed development including off-street parking tacilities and access thereto in that the the location of access to surface and subterranean parking on Twentieth Street and the alley will provide adequate circulation, pedestrian walkways will be maintained and adequate parking will be provided to meet the anticipated parking demand. - 1 - 4. The existing and/or proposed public and/or private health and safety facilities (including, but not limited to, sanitation, sewers, storm drains, fire protection devices, protective services, and public utilities) will be ade- quate to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro- posed development. S. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan of the city of Santa Monica and the Zoning Ordinance in that the project will conform to the height, bulk, use and urban design policies for the Santa Monica General commercial Land Use District as specified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and with the variance for com- pact parking, will conform to the appropriate C4 standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. VARIANCE FINDINGS 1. The strict applicaton of the provisions of the Zoning Or- dinance would result in practical difficulties or unneces- sary hardships inconsistent with the qeneral purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance (Article IX, SMMC) in that the nu~~er of on-site parking spaces exceeds the code re- quirement and the inclusion of compact parking spaces will not detrimentally affect the cirrculation and parkinq pat- terns of the project. 2. The granting of a variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located in that similar projects in ; the past have utilized compact parking spaces with no significant impact on circulation patterns or neighboring properties and that provided parking is in excess of that rwequired. 3 . The granting of a variance 1. essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare and not in conflict with the General Plan, and will not be materially detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the im- mediate neighborhood in that several projects in the past have incorporated compact park!nq spaces with no signifi- cant impacts and the total number of parking spaces pro- vided exce.ds the required n~~ber. 4 . There are exceptional circumstances and conditions ap- plicable to the property involved that do not apply gene- rally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood in that compact parking space. have been historically per- mitted by the City until recently and denial of a variance for compact spaces would result in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of this chapter. - 2 - CONDITIONS Plans 1. This approval is for those plans dated January 3, 1989, a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the city Planning oivision. Project development shall be consis- tent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval. 2. The Plans shall comply with all other provisions of Chap- ter 1, Article IX of the Municipal Code, (Zoning Or- dinance) and all other pertinent ordinances and General Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica. 3. Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be sub- ject to the review and approval of the parking and Traffic Engineer. 4. 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 moditied by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board or Director of Planning. 5. Plans for tinal design, landscaping, screening, trash en- closures, and signag. shall ~e subject to review and ap- 'ro ~l by the Architectural Review Board. 6. The ArChitectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the project's pedestrian orienta- tion and amenities, scale and articulation of design ele- ments; exterior colors, textures and materials; window treatment; glazing; and landscaping. Fees 7. The city is contemplating the adoption of a Transportation Management Plan which is intended to mitigate traffic and air quality iapacts resulting trom both new and existing development. The Plan will likely include an ordinance .stablishinq Ili tiqation requirements, including one-time paya.nt of te.s on certain types of new development, and annual tees to be paid ~y certain types of employers in the Ci ty. This ordinance may require that the owner of the proposed proj ect pay such new development fee., and that employers within the project pay such new annual em- ployer fees related to the city's Transportation Manage- ment plan. - 3 - construction 8 . Unless otherwise approved by the Department of General Services, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable during the grading and construction phase of the project. 9. Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need replacing or removal as a result of the project as deter- mined by the Department of General Services shall be re- constructed to the satisfaction of the Department of General Services. Approval for this work shall be ob- tained from the Department of General Services prior to issuance of the building permits. 10. 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. 11. Street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as required in a manner consistent with the City'S Tree Code (Ord. 1242 CCS), per the specifications of the Department of Recreation and Parks and the Department ot General Ser- vices. No street tree shall be removed without the ap- proval of the Department of Recreation and Parks. 12. A construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by the app1 icant tor approval by the Department ot General Services prior to issuance of a building permit. As ap- plic~ble this plan shall 1) specify the names, addresses, teleJ:..l:.on numbers and business license nnmhers of all con- tractors 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 side- walk is proposed to be used in conjunction with construc- tion: 5) Set forth the extent and nature ot any pi1e- 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 dewater- ing and its .ffect on any adjacent buildings: 8) Describe anticipated contruction-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 normal- ly permitted hours i. proposed; 11) Describe any proposed contruction noise mitigation measur.s; 12) Describe con- struction-period security measures inclUding any fencing, lighting, and security personnel; 13) Provide a drainage plan; 14) Provide a construction-period parking plan which shall minimize use of public streets for parking; 15) List a designated on-site construction manager; - 4 - 13. A copy of these conditions shall be posted in an easily visible and accessible location at all times during con- struction at the project site. The pages shall be lami- nated or otherwise protected to ensure durability of the copy. Environmental Mitigation 14. Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures are required on all new development and remodeling where plumbing is to be added. (Maximum 1.6 gallon toilets and 1.0 gallon urinals and low flow shower head.) 15. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, project owner shall present documentation to the General Services Department certifying that existing Santa Monica occupancies with toilets installed prior to 1978 have been retrofitted with ultra low-flow toilets (1.6 gallons per flush or less) such that development of the new proj ect will not result in a net increase in wastewater flows. Flow from existing occupancies which will be removed as part of the new development may be deducted from flow attributable to the new development if such occupancies have been occupied within one year prior to issuance of a Building permit tor the proposed project. Flow calculations for new 'development and existing occupancies shall be consistent with quidelines developed by the General Services Department. 16. To mitigate. soj ~ d waste impacts, prior to issuance of a Certificate ,~ ( ~upancy, project owner shall submit a recyclinq plan to the Department of General Services for its approval. The recycling plan shall include 1) list of materials such as white paper, computer paper, metal cans, and qlas. to be recycled; 2) location of recyling bins: 3) desiqnated recyclinq coordinator; 4) nature and extent of internal and external piCk-Up service; 5) pick-up schedule: 6) plan to inform tenants/occupants of service. Miscellaneous Conditions 17. The building address shall be painted on the roof of the buildinq and shall measure four feet by eight feet (32 square feet). 18. 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. 19. The exterior parking area shall be used tor employee and customer parking only and not tor repair or finishing work or long-term (over one week) storage of vehicles. - 5 - Validity of Permits 20. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of this permit, no further per- mits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied. 21. Within ten days of Planning Oivision transmittal of the Statement of Official Action, project applicant shall sign and return a copy of the statement of Official Action prepared by the Planning Division, aqreeing to the Condi- tions of approval and aCknowledqinq that failure to comply with such conditions shall constitute grounds for poten- tial revocation of the permit approval. The signed Stat- ment shall be returned to the Planninq Division. Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute grounds for potential permit revocation. 22. This determination shall not become effective tor a period of fourteen days from the date of determination or, if appealed, until a. tinal determination is made on the appeal. special Conditions 23. On-site parkinq 9h-ll b. made available without cost to Duildinq customers ~nd employees until such time as a preferential parking district is established in the vicinity of the site. 24. The project shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality Mangagement District (SCAQMD) Regulation XV, as contained in Appendix 0 ot the EIR, EIA 870, (Mandatory ridesharing for employers employing more than 100 persons). 25. Santa Monica Boulevard east of 20th Street shall be re- striped at the developer's expense to accommodate a total of six lan.., including the addition of an exclusive right-turn pocket on the westbound Santa Monica Boulevard approach to 20th Str.et if requa.ted by the City parking and Traffic Engineer. 26. The exiatinq traffic lan.. on Santa Monica Boulevard west of 20th Street .hall be r.striped and shifted sou~hward to minimize the potential offset resulting trom the restrip- 1n9 required on Santa Monica Boulevard east of 20th Street if requested by the city Parking and Traffic Enqineer. 27. All internal building systems and appliances shall be en ergy efficient models to the satisfaction ot the Buildi~ and Safety Division. - 6 - 28. When and where reasonably fea.iDle, construction activi- ties shall be screened from residential land uses, con- valescent home., medical treatment facilities and hospital recovery rooms. 29. Construction related vehicles shall avoid usinq residen- tial streets. 30. All construction equipment shall conform to the noise standards established by the State occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA). 31. Mulch shall be used in landscaped areas to improve water retention capacity of soil, reduce evaporation anmd mini- mize soil compaction and an efficient irriqation system shall be installed in all landscaped area. which minimizes runoff and maximizes retention of water in plant roots. 32. If any archaeoloqical remains are uncovered durinq excava- tion or construction, work in the affected area shall be suspended and a recognized specialist trom an .stablished insti tut.ion (.. q: UCLA Department. of Archaeology) will be contacted to conduct a survey ot the atfected area. A preliminary determination shall then be made by the City and the specialist as t.o the siqniticance of the survey findings. All actions taken under this measure shall be in accord with Appendix K ot the state CEQA Guidelines. 33. The final working drawings shall include a .ection showing the building not to exceed 1\ height ot 56 teet above average grade as ]I ,sured fro) the average level ot the highest and lowe.t points of that portion of the let covered by the building. 34. Plans shall be submitted to the ArChitectural Review Board showing details of the root equipment screeninq, including colors, materials and height ot screen. The applicant shall endeavor to reduce the heiqht above parapet ot the mechanical equip.ent and related scre.ning. 35. That no retail, ratail tinancial institution or medical office occupancies shall be permitted in tha davelopment d.ua to the related traffic generation rate. which are hiqber than general office occupancies. 36. 'l'hat. 1:11. project shall be r~es1qned to provide on-sita circulation between the surtace level parking ar.a and the subterranean parking garage. The revised parking and cir- culation layout ahall require approval of the City Parking and Traffic Engin.er. Any related modification of the building tootprint or plana shall require approval ot the Planning Division. 37. That the surface parking level shall be re.erved for use by visitors to the project and occupants ot the project shall be directed to park within the subterranean 9~a9.. - 7 - Building occupants shall use the surface parking- level only in the event of overtlow parking demand within the subterranean garage. 38. The duti.. of at least one employee in the propos.d build- ing .hall include promotion and coordination ot carpooling by occupant. ot the buildinq. 39. The project shall b. reduced in size by ',000 square teet of rentable floor area, reducinq the overall project to a maximum ot 46,832 square teet. The revised plans shall require approval by the Planning Division. 40. Prior to issuance ot a certiticate of occupancy tor the project, the applicant shall pay to the City ot Santa Monica a sum to be determined by the Parkinq and Traffic Engineer not to exceed $10,000 tor use by the Parking and Tratfic Division tor mitiqation ot the tratfic impacts at the intersection of Twentieth Street and Santa Monica Boulevard, including, but not limited to, the installation ot a median island or stanyarda to pr.clude lett turns into the project by drivers travelling northbound on Twen- tieth Street. Any portion ot such aWl not so utilized within two years atter issuance ot the certiticate ot oc- cupancy tor the project ahall b. retund.d to the applicant. 41. The rights granted herein ahall be .tfective only when exerci.ed within a period ot on. y.ar trom the ettective date of approval. No time .rten.ion .ball be granted. PROJECT MITIGATION FEE CONDITION 1. In accordance with S.ctions 9046.1 - 9046.4 ot the Santa Monica Municipal Cod., prior to issuance ot a building permit the d.v.lop.r .hall executa an irrevocable letter ot cr.dit or other fora of ..curity acc.ptable to the city for the payment of an in-lieu t.. for housing and parka equal to $2.25/.q.tt. tor the first 15,000 sq. ft. ot net rentable of tic. floor area and $5.00/aq.tt. for the remaininq net rentable office floor area. This t.. shall be adjuated tor intlation by the percentaq. change in the Conauaer Price Index ("CPI") between October 1984 throuqh the aonth in which the payment ia ude. Upon mutual agr.~t ot the d.veloper and the City, the d.veloper may satisfy the Project Mitiqation .eaaur.s by providinq low and aod.rat. incom. housing or developing n.w park apace on or oft the proj.ct .it.. To fultill this obliqation an aqr....nt shall b. s.cur.d in writing by the d.veloper and approv.d by the City Attorn.y and city atatt prior to is- suance of a buildinq permit. This te., prior to adjust- ment, will b. $164,800, ba.ed on a net rentable otfice floor area ot 41,210 square teet. - 8 - VOTE Ayes: Nays: Abstain: Absent: Farivar, Hecht, Kaufman, Lambert, Mechur and Pyne Nelson I h.re~y certify tbat accurately reflect. the Commission of the city of (;2.~ / srinature ./1 / 1 / ' I /6,." 4 . / -'- ~ ec./ /ti>? print name and title PC/STDR441 SL 1/18/89 thi. stat..ent of final determination santa xonica. - 9 - &L / / / ../~ /.$ <:) "'7,. Official Action of the Plauuinq J~ J /:9J?/' date /"/ 0/ L- ~ '/r Athch~+ "Gtt CITY PLANNING DIVISION Community and Economic Development Department MEMORANDUM DATE: January 18, 1989 TO: The Honorable Planning Commission FROM: Planning staff SUBJECT: DR 441, VAR 88-016, EIA 870 Address: Applicant: 1919 Santa Monica Boulevard 1919 Associates St,'MMARY Action: Consideration of a Site Review, Variance and Certifica- tion of an Environmental Impact Report to permit the construction of a four-story, 51,832 square-foot office/retail structure with surface parking and two levels of subterranean parking, including 40% compact parking spaces. This application is being reviewed subject to the provisions of the previous zoning ordinance. Recommendation: Approval with conditions SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The subject property is a 22,500 sq.ft. parcel located on the northwest corner of Twentieth street and Santa Monica Boulevard having a frontage of 150 feet on both streets. Surrounding uses consist of a three and four-story convalescent hospital (CP) to the north, vacant (C4) to the south, 12-story medical office (CP) to the east and general commercial (C4) to the west. Zoning Districts: C4 Land Use Districts: Santa Monica General Commercial Parcel Area: 1501 X 1501 - 22,500 square feet Permit streamlining Expiration Date: March 2, 1989 PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant is proposing construction of a four-story, 51,832 square-foot commercial building with 5,622 square feet of covered surface parking, 6,366 square feet of ground floor retail space and 39,844 square feet of upper level office space. A Site Re- view Permit is required to permit the development to exceed a height of three stories/45 feet and a Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) - 1 - of 2.0. The Site Review process permits consideration of development up to a height of four stories/56' and an F.A.R. of 2.5. The proposed development has a height of four stories/56' and an F.A.R. of 2.3. The Floor Area Ratio for the structure was calculated using the full area of the covered surface parking area. In accordance with standards established in the Land Use Element, the surface parking area did not qualify to be counted at 2/3 of its area for purposes of the F . A. R . calculation because the first level ex- ceeds a height of ten feet. The proposed 2.3 F.A.R. consists of 2.05 F. A. R. devoted to enclosed building space and .25 F .A. R. devoted to a covered, surface parking lot. It should be noted that, whereas this .25 F.A.R. contributes to the apparent bulk of the structure, it does not generate any additional traffic. MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The project is being considered under the previous Zoning Code due to the date the application was deemed complete (prior to April 29, 1988). The proposed project is consistent with the Municipal Code and in conformity with the General Plan as shown in Attachment A, with the exception of the 40% compact parking spaces for which a variance has been applied. It has been city policy, based upon actual compact stall usage, to permit 40% of the total number of parking spaces to be compact. CEQA STATUS An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and three Addenda have been prepared for this project. Approval of a resolution certifying the adequacy of the EIR is recommended. Copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to the Planning Commission at the beginning of the 30-day pUblic review period. Comments were received and the responses to the comments are incorporated into the Final EIR and Addenda to the EIR. The first Addendum consisted of an addition- al comment and response which were not printed in the Final EIR and a minor correction to the sewer section of the EIR. A second Addendum has been prepared in response to Planning Com- mission direction given at the meeting of October 5, 1988. This Addendum presents recounts of the traffic levels at the intersec- tion of 20th Street and Santa Monica Boulevard. In addition, the Addendum proposes new traffic impact mitigation measures. The third Addendum was prepared at the request of the applicant to address the potential traffic impacts of an all-office scenar- io, substituting office space for the proposed 6,366 square feet of ground floor retail space. This Addendum also corrects the project description on page II!-l to include a discussion of the variance to permit 40% compact parking spaces. As shown in Table A-2 of this Addendum, there would be no significant traffic im- pacts in either the a.m. or p.m. peak hours associated with an all-office scenario. - 2 - FEES This project is subject to the Housing and Parks Project Mitiga- tion Measures of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan. The project mitigation measures may be satisfied by payment of an in-lieu fee to the City as established by Or- dinance 1367 (CCS) and as outlined in the conditions of approval for this project. ANALYSIS Background This case was continued from the oriqinal Planning Commission hearing of October S, 1988, in order to permit time for addition- al study of traffic issues. Specifically, comm.ission directed that new traffic counts be taken at the intersection of 20th street and Santa Monica Boulevard, that additional traffic mitigation measures be examined and that discrepancies in traffic counts between the subject EIR and other EIR's be addressed. The requested analyses have been completed and are presented in the Addendum to the EIR, dated November, 1988. The hearing was con- tinued again from the meeting of December 14, 1988, due to hear- ing time constraints. Project Description The proposed four-story development has 31 covered, surface park- ing spaces and two levels of subterranean parking. The subter- ranean garage is accessed from the alley. Ingress to and egress from the surface parking lot is provided on Twentieth street and the alley. The project is proposed to have 46,210 square feet of retail and office area. Based on the code parking requirement of one space for every 300 square feet of floor area, 154 parking spaces are required. The parking layout has been revised to in- crease the number of parking spaces by three and reduce the num- ber of compact spaces by 3. A total of 158 parking spaces will be provided in addition to three on-grade loading spaces. It has been City policy to allow 40% of the total number of park- ing spaces to be compact. A variance has been applied for to permit 63 of the total 158 spaces, or 40% of the total, to be compact. Staff recommends approval of this request. The main building entrances are located centrally facing Santa Monica Boulevard and the surface parking lot. A lS' landscaped setback is provided along Twentieth Street. The three upper floors of the structure are set back approximately 31 feet and the ground level is set back 23 feet from the northern property line adjacent to the convalescent home. There is an existing driveway and ten-foot high concrete block wall to the north of the property which separates the convalescent horoe from the sub- ject site which will remain. - 3 - The structure is designed with several small terraces on the front, side and rear elevations. proposed exterior materials include ceramic tile wall panels, aluminum windows, steel railing and a cylindrical feature covered in baked enamel, metal panels. Environmental Impact Report The Environmental Impact Report analyzed various areas of poten- tial project-related impacts including, among others: land use, traffic and circulation, noise, shadows, sewer service and neigh- borhood effects. The EIR determined that no long-term signifi- cant impacts would result from the project. The EIR proposed a number of mitigation measures. These have been included in the list of recommended conditions of approval for the project. Some of the major areas addressed in the EIR are discussed below. Traffic and Circulation-- Revised Counts The fOllowing five intersections were analyzed in the EIR to determine detailed level of service and volume/capacity (v/e) ratios during the morning and evening peak hours in accordance with the Critical Movement Analysis method of intersection capacity analysis: Santa Monica Boulevard and 17th Street Santa Monica Boulevard and 20th Street Santa Monica Boulevard and Cloverfield Boulevard Wilshire Boulevard and 20th Street Colorado Avenue and 20th street The analysis estimated that the project would generate 124 vehi- cle trips during the a.m. peak hour and 276 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour. The city defines a significant traffic im- pact as one which results in an increase of 0.02 or greater in the V/C ratio of an intersection when that intersection is proj- ected to operate at a level of service of E or F. The level of service analysis for the intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and 20th Street was reexamined in the November, 1988 Addendum to clarify discrepancies between the oriqinal ErR and other EIR' s which previously had been prepared for nearby projects. As shown in Table 8, page 38 of the Addendum to the EIR, the re- vised traffic counts found that, prior to mitigation, a signifi- cant traffic impact would be expected at the intersection of San- ta Monica Boulevard and 20th street during the p.m. peak hour. The proposed development is projected to create a 4% increase in the volume/capacity ratio above the cumulative base traffic con- ditions at a level of service "Eft. The project is not projected to create a significant impact on any of the other study inter- sections in either the morning or evening peak hours. As noted above, the Addendum revealed that a significant traffic impact would occur at 20th Street and Santa Monica Boulevard under unmitigated conditions. However, the Addendum proposes feasible traffic mitigation measures whereby the traffic impact - 4 - at this intersection is reduced to an insignificant level. The proposed mitigation measures are: - Restripe Santa Monica Boulevard east of 20th street to accommodate a total of six lanes wi thin the existing pavement width. The restriping would create an exclu- sive right-turn pocket on the westbound Santa Monica approach to 20th Street. - Restripe Santa Monica Boulevard west of 20th street to shift existing lanes southward within existing pavement width to realign with the restriping east of 20th Street. The analysis showed that assuming the implementation of the above mitigation measures, the projected volume/capacity ratio would be improved from 0.99 to 0.93 during the evening peak hour, thus not only reducing the traffic impact at that intersection to an in- significant level, but actually improving its operational capacity. The city is preparing a comprehensive Transportation Systems Man- agement (TSM) Plan to implement the policies adopted in the City'S circulation Element. As a condition of approval, the project may be required to comply with the TSM Plan when it is adopted. Shadow Study The shadow analysis in the EIR was performed on a worst-case ba- sis. The study is based on shadows which would be cast from the ~uildin9, as well as from its rooftop mechanical screening, during the winter solstice. The study shows that shadows would be cast during the morning hours onto the convalescent home which is located adjacent to and on the north of the proposed develop- ment. The south wall of the adj acent convalescent home is primarily solid. The windows on this wall are primarily shaded by existing cypress trees. There is a roof deck with tables and chairs in the middle portion of the roof of the convalescent home. The maximum impact on this roof deck would occur at 9 a.m. on December 22. Due to seasonal considerations, it is unlikely that the roof deck will receive much use during the early morning of the winter months. For the above reasons, no significant shadow impacts are expected to result from the proposed development. Wastewater Generation-- Revised Factors The original wastewater generation estimates cited in the EIR were obtained by using factors which the City has since replaced. The General Services Department has refined and revised its was- tewater generation factors. As a result, the Addendum has an updated section on sewer service. using the revised factors cit- ed in the Addendum, the project is expected to generate approxi- mately 2,614 gallons of effluent per day (gpd). - 5 - The City has adopted a Wastewater Control Ordinance which specifies caps on two, six-month allocation periods per year. The current period is from January 1 through June 30, 1989 and per- mits a total new wastewater allocation of 86,632 gpd. Subse- quently, additional wastewater allocation of 173,264 gpd will be available annually. During the last six-month period, which end- ed on December 31, 1988, 70% of the total allocation was used. This resulted in a surplus amounting to 30% of the previous allo- cation period which has been rolled over to the current period. Currently, only five percent of the current allocation has been used. Therefore, a wastewater allocation of approximately 108,290 gpd remains during the current period. The allocation is linked to the issuance of building permits and, for projects of this project's scope, is assigned on a first-come, first-serve basis. The total generation of 2,614 gpd flow for the proposed project represents approximately 3% of the total six-month allo- cation and 1.5% of the annual allocation. It is important to note that the Wastewater Control Ordinance limits the total permitted new allocation and, therefore, con- trols the cumulative wastewater flow permitted to the Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant. In so doing, the total permitted allocation will not be exceeded. SITE REVIEW CONSIDERATION .nh~- "pp~oval . o. t the .v. a.rianc.e to... -parlIit -4J),1.,,'C9ltP."~_'~~ thl t!'tOpoaed , ;ou~-stc?~ _, .. .qf';J.~~taJJ.....-d,..v~tJ.smu~ __will _ -,!!l!~ al~- .~V'.t~lS(~i.ittllt~. > aX'~s ~~QQd&..~1nu~I,...-tb..,>x.~est for approval '6? l uP ...~.\{i.~ Q.I iM -.IlU1Port du.e _ -:toP'provi.io~ 5?t a 15- foot 1 n~sc~pe~> _ ~~t ac;:.k A.J.ona"...2J}tA.,. $'t4..t; ~a -4:.!aJ;,c !'!ttba~k of 23 to 31 _-ftr tfi. des;,g,~ J~ ""tbJ~J;mi.lc;ln~ 011~J~t..pl back on all elevations . . .. , and the prov!s on 0 --four' extra -parltinq spa'ce.: -In addition, the proposed traftic mitiqatflSti"'iill'.uYe. 'of reatriplnq will actually- improva~ 't!1. ms '~-~~~~~~~..~~f6_rt: ~t"''''~~~'''''';-:~~rd .,antf . ~~:h~~~~~~r.~~P~~?\~.%~r~:;:~:r~th~~ ~ the proposed 2.3 F.A.R., an F.A.R. of only 2.05 is attributable to the enclosed building area. The covered parking area on the ground level comprises a 0.25 F.A.R. As determined in...Qe J:IR,the project, with .it_i9a~ion me~sur_, rill no........'..&OI -1M1'''''!-e",~Wl'. ".!CJ'rfrf'etm~-;'-lItiVlronm.ntal im- pa~. A number of mitigation measures are recommended as condi- tions' of approval to reduce project-related impacts. ~ RECOMMENDATION ~ ~ I \2- ~d Of prD~ "ThJ.refct't ) ~.. . Stat! respecttu.~ w...rac:oue.na. the Plann~n9 C01lUDJ..a~on ap- prove the resolution certifying Environmental Impact Report, EIA 870, Site Review application, D 441, and Variance 88-016 subject to the following findings and conditions. c;-~ ~WW o-,d V~U Cr..p~~~ :~4 wd.h '*u ~ ~ et>rd(:..r,~~~j"" "'/\ ..1J_ - -~~ a.~) ___..J.-, , . u (i C',A ~ f}...; 5,y;r,,4_J-A-C'"'/J...k- vr,' YYU' au , ~ -~I f..-' J.--1- I' I I~j~""",/Jjj (/yl. ()~..;)r J I ,! '7 1'1 U2 /1 e.-,-"n v...r;l~-h'~ j..o.'.J a --p. t'--- [. ~..) r~Jl.M-~ -,77f~~:' DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS 1. The development is consistent with the findings and pur- pose of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below. 2. The physical location and placement of the proposed struc- ture on the site is compatible with and relates harmo- niously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods in that the structure will exceed required setbacks on all sides and is of a compatible height and scale with surrounding development. The site is currently vacant and graded; therefore, no landscaping currently exists on site. The development includes a 151 strip of landscaping along Twentieth Street and potential landscaping on terraces facing santa Monica Boulevard. 3. The existing and/or proposed rights-of-way and facilities for both pedestrian and automobile traffic will be ade- quate to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro- posed development including off-street parking facilities and access thereto in that the the location of access to surface and subterranean parking on Twentieth street and the alley will provide adequate circulation, pedestrian walkways will be maintained and adequate parking will be provided to meet the anticipated parking demand. 4. The existing and/or proposed public and/or private health and safety facilities (includinq, but not limited to, sanitation, sewers, storm drains, fire protection devices, protect ore services, and public utilities) will be ade- quate tv accommodate the anticipated results of the pro- posed development. 5. The proposed development is consistent wi th the General Plan of the city of Santa Monica and the Zoning Ordinance in that the project will conform to the height, bulk, use and urban design pOlicies for the Santa Monica General Commercial Land Use District as specified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and with the variance for com- pact parking, will conform to the appropriate C4 standards contained in the zoning Ordinance. VARIANCE FINDINGS 1. The strict applicaton of the prov~s~ons of the zoning Or- dinance would result in practical difficulties or unneces- sary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance (Article IX, SMMC) in that the number of on-site parking spaces exceeds the code re- quirement and the inclusion of compact parking spaces will not detrimentally affect the cirrculation and parking pat- terns of the project. 2. The granting of a variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious tq the - 7 - property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located in that similar projects in ithe past have utilized compact parking spaces with no significant impact on circulation patterns or neighboring properties and that provided parking is in excess of that rwequired. 3. The granting of a variance is essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare and not in conflict with the General Plan, and will not be materially detrimental or inj ur iOlls to the property or improvements in the im- mediate neighborhood in that several projects in the past have incorporated compact parking spaces with no signifi- cant impacts and the total number of parking spaces pro- vided exceeds the required number. 4. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions ap- plicable to the property involved that do not apply gene- rally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood in that compact parking spaces have been historically per- mitted by the City until recently and denial of a variance for compact spaces would result in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships inconsistent wi th the general purpose and intent of this chapter. CONDITIONS Plans 1. This approval is for those plans dated January 3, 1989, a copy of which ~ all be maintained in the files of the city Planning Divisi_.l. Project development shall he consis- tent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval. 2. The Plans shall comply with all other provisions of Chap- ter 1, Article IX of the Municipal Code, (Zoning Or- dinance) and all other pertinent ordinances and General Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica. 3. Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be sub- ject to the review and approval of the Parking and Traffic Engineer. 4. 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. 5. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash en- closures, and signage shall be subject to review and ap- proval by the Architectural Review Board. - 8 - 6. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the project's pedestrian orienta- tion and amenities: scale and articulation of design ele- ments; exterior colors, textures and materials; window treatment; glazing; and landscaping. Fees 7. The city is contemplating the adoption of a Transportation Management Plan which is intended to mitigate traffic and air quality impacts resulting from both new and existing development. The Plan will likely include an ordinance establishing mitigation requirements, including one-time payment of fees on certain types of new development, and annual fees to be paid by certain types of employers in the city. This ordinance may require that the owner of the proposed project pay such new development fees, and that employers within the project pay such new annual em- ployer fees related to the City.s Transportation Manage- ment Plan. Construction 8. Unless otherwise approved by the Department of General Services, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable during the grading and construction phase of the project. 9. sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need replacing or removal as a result of the project as deter- mined by the Departmen~ of General Services shall be re- constructed to the sa ~sfaction of the Department of General Services. Approval for this work shall be ob- tained from the Department of General Services prior to issuance of the building permits. 10. Vehicles hauling dirt or other construction debris from the site shall cover any open load with a tarpaulin or other secure covering to mini~ize dust emissions. 11. Street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as required in a manner consistent with the City's Tree Code COrd. 1242 CCS), per the specifications of the Department of Recreation and Parks and the Department of General Ser- vices. No street tree shall be removed without the ap- proval of the Department of Recreation and Parks. 12. A construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by the applicant for approval by the Department of General Services prior to issuance of a building permit. As ap- plicable, this plan shall 1) Specify the names, addresses, telephone numbers and business license numbers of all con- tractors and subcontractors as well as the developer and archi tect; 2) Describe how demol i tion of any existing structures is to be accomplished: 3) Indicate where any cranes are to be located for erection/construction; 4) - 9 - Describe how much of the public street, alleyway, or side- walk is proposed to be used in conjunction with construc- tion~ 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 dewater- ing and its effect on any adjacent buildings; 8) Describe anticipated contruction-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 normal- ly permitted hours is proposed~ 11) Describe any proposed contruction noise mitigation measures; 12) Describe con- struction-period security measures including any fencing, lighting, and security personnel; 13) Provide a drainage plan~ 14) Provide a construction-period parking plan which shall minimize use of pUblic streets for parking; 15) List a designated on-site construction manager: 13. A copy of these conditions shall be posted in an easily visible and accessible location at all times during con- struction at the project site. The pages shall be lami- nated or otherwise protected to ensure durability of the copy. Environmental Mitigation 14. Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures are required on all new development and remodeling where plumbing is to be added. (Maximum 1.6 gallon toilets anc 1.0 gallon urinals and low flow shower head.) 15. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, project owner shall present documentation to the General Services Department certifying that existing Santa Monica occupancies with toilets installed prior to 1978 have been retrofitted with ultra low-flow toilets (1.6 gallons per flush or less) such that development of the new project will not result in a net increase in wastewater flows. Flow from existing occupancies which will be removed as part of ~he new development may be deducted from flow attributable to the new development if such occupancies have been occupied within one year prior to issuance of a Building permit for the proposed project. Flow calculations for new development and existing occupancies shall be consistent with guidelines developed by the General Services Department. 16. To mitigate solid waste impacts, prior to issuance of a certificate of Occupancy, project owner shall submit a recycling plan to the Department of General services 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 recyling bins: 3) designated recycling coordinator; 4) nature and extent of - 10 - internal and external pick-up service ~ 5) pick-up schedule; 6) plan to inform tenants/occupants of service. Miscellaneous Conditions 17. The building address shall be painted on the roof of the building and shall measure four feet by eight feet (32 square feet). 18. 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. 19. The exterior parking area shall be used for employee and customer parking only and not for repair or finishing work or long-term (over one week) storage of vehicles. Validity of Permits 20. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of this permit, no further per- mits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied. 21. Within ten days of Planning Division transmittal of the state~ent of Official Action, project applicant shall sign and return a copy of the Statement of Official Action prepared by the Planning Division, agreeing to the Condi- tions of approval and acknowledging thQ failure to comply with such conditions shall constitute ~rounds for poten- tial revocation of the permit approval. The signed stat- ment shall be returned to the Planning Division. Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute grounds for potential permit revocation. 22. This determination shall not become effective for a period of fourteen days from the date of determination or, if appealed, until a final determination is made on the appeal. Special Conditions 23. on-site parking shall be made available without cost to building customers and employees until such time as a preferential parking district is established in the vicinity of the site. 24. The project shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality Mangagement District (SCAQMD) Regulation XV, as contained in Appendix D of the EIR, EIA 870, (Mandatory ridesharing for employers employing more than 100 persons). 25. santa Monica Boulevard east of 20th street shall be re- - striped at the developer's expense to accommodate a total - 11 - of six lanes, including the addition of an exclusive right-turn pocket on the westbound Santa Monica Boulevard approach to 20th Street if requested by the city Parking and Traffic Engineer. 26. The existing traffic lanes on Santa Monica Boulevard west of 20th Street shall be restriped and shifted southward to minimize the potential offset resulting from the restrip- ing required on Santa Monica Boulevard east of 20th Street if requested by the City Parking and Traffic Engineer. 27. All internal building systems and appliances shall be en- ergy efficient models to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division. 28. When and where reasonably feasible, construction activi- ties shall be screened from residential land uses, con- valescent homes, xedical treatment facilities and hospital recovery rooms. 29. Construction related vehicles shall avoid using residen- tial streets. 30. All construction equipment shall conform to the noise standards established by the state occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA). 31. Mulch shall be used in landscaped areas to improve water retention capacity of soil, reduce evaporation anmd mini- mize soil compaction and an efficient irriga" ion system shall be installed in all landscaped areas whic. minimizes runoff and maximizes retention of water in plant roots. 32. If any archaeological remains are uncovered during excava- tion or construction, work in the affected area shall be suspended and a recognized specialist from an established institution (e.q: UCLA Department of Archaeology) will be contacted to conduct a survey of the affected area. A preliminary determination shall then be made by the City and the specialist as to the significance of the survey findings. All actions taken under this measure shall be in accord with Appendix K of the State CEQA Guidelines. 33. The final working drawings shall include a section showing the building not to exceed a height of 56 feet above average grade as measured from the average level of the highest and lowest points of that portion ot the lot covered by the building. 34. Plans shall be submitted to the ArChitectural Review Board showing details of the roof equipment screening, including colors, materials and height of screen. The applicant shall endeavor to reduce the height above parapet of the mechanical equipment and related screening. - 12 - 35. The rights granted herein shall be effective only when exercised within a period of one year from the effective date of approval. No time extension shall be granted. PROJECT MITIGATION FEE CONDITION 1. In accordance with Sections 9046.1 - 9046.4 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, prior to issuance of a building permit the developer shall execute an irrevocable letter of credit or other form of security acceptable to the City for the payment of an in-lieu fee for housing and parks equal to $2.25/sq.ft. for the first 15,000 sq. ft. of net rentable office floor area and $5.00/sq.ft. for the remaining net rentable office floor area. This fee shall be adjusted for inflation by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index ("CPI") between October 1984 through the month in which the payment is made. Upon mutual agreement of the developer and the City, the developer may satisfy the Project Mitigation measures by providing low and moderate income housing or developing new park space on or off the project site. To fulfill this obligation an agreement shall be secured in writing by the developer and approved by the city Attorney and City staff prior to is- suance of a building permit. This fee, prior to adjust- ment, will be $157,970, based on a net rentable office floor area of 39,844 square feet. Prepared by: Shari Laham, Associate Planner PC/DR441b SL: nh 1/10/89 Attachments: A. Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance B. Radius Map C. Planning Commission Minutes of 10/5/88 meeting D. Resolution of Certification of EIR E. Statement of Certification of EIR F. Project Trip Generation Estimates, submitted by applicant G. Summary of Zero-Net Increase in Wastewater Flows, submitted by applicant H. Protest letters, dated 8/22, 10/3, 10/4, 12/5 and 12/6/88 I. Memo regarding Alternative sites Evaluation J. Addendum to EIR, dated September 28, 1988 K. Addendum to EIR for All-Office Scenario Traffic Study L. Addendum to ErR, dated November, 1988 (Previously distributed) M. Final EIR (Previously distributed) N. Plot Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations and Sections - 13 - ATTACHMENT A MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE Land Use category Municipal Code Element Permitted Use General General Commercial commercial Height 6 stories/gO' 3 storieSj45' ; with site Review: 4 stories/56' Setbacks Front yard 0' Same as Municipal Code Sideyard 0' Same as Municipal Code Rearyard 0' Same as Municipal Code F.A.R. 2 . 0: or 3.3 With Site Review: 2.5 Parking 154 spaces 3 loading spaces Same as Municipal Code - 14 - project General Office/Retail site Review: 4 stories/56' o - 16' 151 on Twentieth st. 3' -6" - 13' on alley 23' - 31' Varies Site Review: 2.3 158 spaces 3 loading spaces ~. ...!.: - --" . 11 '~Ig, n~ET Q(~.t '~'1 - ~ : ~ , , ~ ,. . - iI C s...i- l r i " ~ :, I ~ ......... I ' Ii .::L..i- ---- '4'""'j .oj I , ! I r='" ..-::- - . I I ..,f. I ~ I r l !" ':'-":' <:-:-.,~ - ~ '(~:.'.' · T I .... q ~ S ~ ' _ .... ~ _ ~. _ 1.. !. Ii . ::j:) ",j _ II jI 11 . SI; .:I i'P'"' t " 'I . 1~~...-19 - ! : ' 2 .,.", ... ~, .. B ~':''':'''," > I !l"" .......")1. ,").~-.~} < j .~11~... I" n. I" ... I ...{... I ... j....; .1 '" L I ;:IOt till. =.; 5~REET I- I \. lJ If 1 0' l I . ) 1; o:l 01(. , -- -( - - ~' ~ ~ , , , '.C,~\ O~::HA.'1D TU.(" 'Z\., - 'U ~ -~ ~ -" ;c 'f -::1'1 ~ I' . I; 0 L [J E \ S T -\. T r '1J! "" L.~ ~ \ ~ ~ c J ~ 1): ; ~ ;(~...~ ~\ ~ : ; wtL ~ \II ~ .r) ~ii 'l'",lj:",,,,,,,,:'qSl ~..E::- !..,. ... oIC .... 'It .. .. ~ " -.I . .c- i '!i I ~'\''1 ;~L.."1_ a , c ' . j ~ ....-A~----I I- ~~r .. ~ ~ :l,J:~ ~ ~,r-1w;,\,' ~ I :1 ~. !~J<': /)..\ Y ! . ORCHA~) TRACi ~ ~ tCl? It 1) ~ !--- ~ ~. "J SLoOtll: 3 ~ r::~. .... OHHUD rue .. ~ 'loll ~" ,,~'" -QL .. . lUKI J, -:t... 0;:" I. " --(--- .:r...+_<" . ~ ~ ~ I - ~ 1 .or < I Z 2 ~ I L ~ s' c . t' "1 I , I ' , ;~] ~:~} ~ <;~ r,~t\~ ... l: .. ...:otiJ .", " r' · L\ 1 . \;{j= · '~4 ~ . '~'iE '\r_ ... ... :I :;II: .... ~ .c > ~ 1. ~ ~@.. r~. I IOlr, ~'~.j.: .C~: ! .. f ~ i ~ c;\ ~ q 1~ G III I ~ .. I 01 u _ 'II . .1 :ii \ '" ~ I ~. ~ L j j- -1- ~ . : . J~ .. - ~ ~',,-q d~A~ll S · II , ~~i . \ LEG-'~ OESCRIPT"lON L,..,+ -; . \ r:;+- B I 0(" \.::. l-:J, n ..,-c-..J.... c;'~ 5o,..>'l*,,- Me"'" c Cl" ~"'OORE5S lC\\'i, ~~cL ~O"",I"",,-- RhrC"i close NO --~ ZQ~: C,4 AP"'lICANT \ C\ \ Ci ,..,... <PC. r R...--. \c- ~ ~,t~~ i-le~ ~ \-=? ::lAwe ~u-"''''' RADIUS MAP FOR PUSL:C I r\ \ 5 \ ~~ He~rlING _..\.J :....~ DA~E [PU~~O~@ !Q)~J>tA\inT~):g~u C~TI' @' S~ Jl1OH.~C& c.Al~1-0A.rJU l"'r,.r.....CI ,6."01 Mop Sk..' ""0 ""-- '" The mot~on to continue the project pend~ng a ruling f~o~ the Cl~y A~torney was defeated by the followlng vote: AYES: Hecht, Lambert, pyne; NOES: Farivar; ABSTAIN; Nelson: ABSENT: Mechur. vice Chair Far~var made a motion to deny the project based on the fact :hat it was not in comp11ance wlth t~e zoning Code and based on pUblic testimony that it would have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood. There was no second. commissioner pyne made a motion for approval of the project. T~ere was no second. staff stated the application was denied due to lack of a maJority vo~e. Commissioner Hecht made an abject motlon to have an opinlon from the City Attorney on this subject. vice Chair Farivar stated he would support a motion for continuing the proJect. Commissioner Pyne made a motion to continue the projec~ pending clarificat~on from the City Attorney to the October 19, 1988, meeting of the Commission. commissioner Hecht seconded the motion. This project was continued to October 19, 1988, pendl~g clarification by the City Attorney by voice vote of a:: members of the Commission who were present. c. C~P 88-005, 1432 4th street, C3C, Application for a Conditional Use Perm~t to permit a nightclub use, consisting of live musical entertainment ~n an ex~sti~q 69 seat bar. Applicant: Harve1le's. continued to 10-19-88. D. DR 367A, EIA 836, Zoning Chanqe 28, 2801 Santa Monica Boulevard, C4, R2, To permit the removal of the 21 unIt Dawn Dee Motel and the construction of a 4 stcry!40', 66 room addition to the existin9 3 story, 82 room Co~:or~ Inn Hotel located at 2801 Santa Monlca Boulevard. continued tor 90 days. E. OR 441, EIA 870, 1919 Santa Monica Blvd., C4, Proposed is a four-story, 51,832 sq. ft. commerc~al structure, includinq 46,210 sq. ft. of office and retall space and 5,622 sq. ft. of covered surface parkinq area, wlth two levels of subterranean parking, on the northwest corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and Twentieth Street. Following the staff report, Commissioner Farivar asked staff if this project fell withln the Hospital Area Specific Plan. Staff stated it was just outside. ? .C IV' !. I Iln '"'M--- """\.1_...... - 6 - [..... ! ~ 1-.1 v .J J ..I L ) J Commis$loner Lambert asked staff about the LOS level at Santa Monica Boulevard and 20th Street being "Fit and ::'0': ItEll. Staff stated the levels differ between surveys. It was further stated that the Water Garden EIR projected a level of !lO", which was a carry over from the Colorado Place data, which was at least 2-3 years old. Mr. ruchiwak~ explained that conditions change i~ an area and that the Transportation Management Plan stated the level of serv~ce (LOS) at !IF". However, the consultant's analysis is 1n error due to incorrect assumpt~ons. It was further stated by Mr. Fuchiwaki that if a liD" LOS becomes actual, drivers shift their patterns to find a better route. Volumes also vary as much as 10% per day. The EIR level of serv~ce is borderline ItB-e" accord~ng to Mr. Fuchiwaki. commissioner pyne expressed a special interest in the 20th and Santa Monica Boulevard location; and stated that traffic has increased considerably in the last three years. Commissioner pyne asked if the GTE building was occupied three years ago. Chair Nelson stated that the consultant had omitted GTE three years ago and new figures had to be done. According to Chair Nelson, GTE moved out of their building in March of 1986. Chair Nelson asked for the actual dates of the traffic study. Mr. Fuchiwaki stated the study was done on Wednesday, May 11th for 20th and Santa Monica Boulevard. Cha~r Nelson asked for specifics about turn1ng and pedestrians. The Traffic Engineer stated that his observation at 5:30 p.m. October 5th revealed no problem. Chalr Nelson stated it was a morning problem. Mr. Fuchiwaki stated that surveys are set by actual number of vehicles at the intersectlon with v1sual observations to verify data. Chair Nelson discussed additional mitigation measures, such as installation of a median island to restrict left turns into the medlcal building on 20th Street between Arizona Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard or the elimination of left turns~ and asked it they had been investigated. Mr. Fuchiwaki stated that left turn congestion is difficult to predic~ and that driver's generally reroute themselves to avo1d congestion. Chair Nelson asked who installs protected left turns. Mr. Fuchiwaki stated that Caltrans has jurisdiction over Santa Monica Boulevard and would install protected left turns If a request was 1nitlated by the city and met their criteria. Chair Nelson asked about the acc~dent history of the intersection. Mr. Fuchiwaki stated he did not have the data with hlm. Cha~r Nelson stated he had seen accidents at this intersection. Mr. Fuchiwaki stated an investigatlon could be done. - 7 - Co~~issioner Hech~ asked that both autos and pedes~r~ans acc~dents be ~nvestigated. Mr. Fuchiwak~ s~ated ~hat the city's recor~s are for reported accldents only. Co~~issioner Nelson asked staff where this project stood in relation to the C~ty Ordinance on sewers, and how much of the annual capacity would be utilized. Staff stated the current figure was around 50% of capacity for this perlod, however permlts will not be issued for at least six months so project will fall into the next per~od. Chalr Nelson asked staff where the City s~ands on on-site treatment plants that are scheduled wlth h~gher priority than this proJect. staff stated that permits are issued on a first come, first serve baS1S. Chair Nelson asked if zero-net flow was discussed wlth the appl~cant or retrofitting other sites. staff stated that option will be available but was not yet discussed w~th the applicant. Joel Landau, 2811 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600, Santa Monica, and Ron Ranes, were present as the applicants. Mr. Landau stated that three companies, Dom~n~on Properties, Rosetti Associates and Morley construction, would occupy the building upon completlon. The following members of the public spoke against the project: Jack Baptista, Ph.D., 12210 9th Street, Santa Moncia for: John Haas, 1221B 9th Street, Santa Monica aill Weingarden, 1234 17th Street, Santa Mon~ca Mr. Landau replied to the public comments and stated that the project predates the new Zoning Ordinance. Chair Nelson asked why this project was not analyzed for medical office use. Mr. Landau stated that medical office use is not permitted. Mr. Landau restated that there would be insufficient parking for medical office use. Chair Nelson asked if the applicant would obJect to a condition stating restriction from medical office use. The applicant stated this would be satisfactory. chair Nelson recommended that their be an on-site TMP person in the building. The applicant stated that could be done. Chair Nelson asked the appl~cant ~f he would consider retrofitt~ng other buildings to alleviate the sewage problem. The applicant stated it would depend upon the cost. Co~~issioner Farivar asked the reason why the new Zoning Ord~nance was not being appl~ed to this project. Staff stated the project was submitted pr~or to the April 28t~ deadline. Chair Nelson stated dismay over the project's EIR, not~ng that the a~r quality statement was inaccurate. - 8 - The certlfication of the EIR and approval of the projec~ were discussed. commissioner Hecht commented on the change ln the LOS of 20th and Santa Monica Boulevard. commissioner Lambert stated she could not believe the numbers and could not certify the EIR. M~. Fuchiwaki stated that the TMP is incorrect, that t~e "FlI LOS is wrongl that it was figured wrong~ that the conditions have changed and there is a fluctuation in the traffic flow. Commissioner pyne noted that both the Water Garden and Colorado Place traffic studies rate the intersection as IfF" LOS. Chair Nelson stated that the Kramer proj ect was initially rated as a "F". Mr. Fuchiwaki explained the tables and levels of service in the EIR according to corrected informatlon. The errors were outlined for several ErR's. Mr. Fuchiwakl also stated that traffic studies are generally done at least six to twelve months prior to the date an EIR is published and that since the older EIRs were publishedl the :rip Generation manual has come out with a fourth editlon, thus Changing the analysis of some data. Chair Nelson agreed that the EIR traffic data was incomplete and lnaccurate. Chair Nelson clted that Cloverfield ar.d the freeway has been observed and rated as an "A" when he ~as personally observed it is not. Mr. Fuchiwakl ex! lined that LOS is an average over a span of time, generally one hourI and that conditions can change drastically within that time span. It is not a precise sc~ence, Mr. Fuchiwaki statedl but it is the best estimate available. Commissioner Pyne stated his support for doing whatever would continue this project and get an update on the traffic situation. Commissioner Farivar suggested voting on the certification and if it were approved, then dealing wit~ the rest of the project. Commissioner pyne reminded Commissioner Farivar that two commissioners already stated they could not support the EIR. Commissioner pyne made a motion to continue the certification of the ErR pending addltional informat~on. Staff asked Commissioner pyne for clarification of what would be needed. Chair Nelson stated he could not certify the document due to lts inaccurate information. No mitigation measures were analyzed in the ErR. - 9 - Staff ind~cated that the appl~cant wanted a vote. Mr. Landau stated that he wanted to move soon, that leases were being terminated in anticipat~on of moving into their new building. Chair Nelson stated that a vote for denial would mean the decision could be appealed to the City Council. Mr. Landau stated he would f~le for an appeal if denied. Comm~ssioner Hecht stated that if the co~~ission feels the ErR is inadequate, then they can vote without taklng the applicant's opin~on into account. Commissioner pyne made a motion to continue the project to allow for update of traffic study, to give clearer, more accurate information on the intersection of 20th street and Santa Monica Boulevard.Commissioner Farivar seconded the motion and asked that whatever must be done to make the information clearer be done. Commissioner Hecht asked that the consultant come up with mitigation measures. Commissioner Lambert stated the need for an explanation as to why the numbers have changed. Chair Nelson stated the need for mitigation measures; the need for carefully analyzed data concerning protected turns and median islands. Chair Nelson stated that ye110.- lines restricting turns do not work, nor do IIno left tl., _.1" signs. Chair Nelson also questioned that; the 4th edition of the the Trip Generator could change the figures so much. Commissioner Lambert asked if the project could be ~ontinued to a date certain. Chair Nelson stated the timetable would be up to the Traffic Engineer and Traffic Consultant. Staff stated that the applicant would have to pay for the additional study. Commissioner Farivar asked if the continuance could be appealed to the city Council. The Deputy City Attorney stated that technically it was arguable, and posslble: however the City Counc~l would probably send it back to the conunission. Chair Nelson stated that if staff findings are inaccurate, then a supplement or addendum to the ErR 15 necessary. The motion for continuing the project was approved by the following vote: AYES: Farivar, Hecht, Lambert, Nelson, pyne: ABSENT: Mechur. - 10 - RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE 1919 ASSOCIATES PROJECT LOCATED AT 1919 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report was issued on April 16, 1988; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report was published on July 20, 1988 in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the city of Santa Monica Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a public review period on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ended on August ?2, 1988; and WHEREAS, on October 5, 1988 and January 18, 1989, the City Planning commission as Lead Agency reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PIANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report, EIA 870, on the 1919 Associates project consisting of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, public comments, city responses and Addenda to the EIR. - 1 - SECTION 2. The Planning Commisison finds that the Final Environmental Impact Report adequately reviews and analyzes potential environmental impacts and effects of the proposed project. SECTION' J. The Planning Commission certifies that the environmental review for the project was conducted in full compliance with CEQA and with State and city CEQA guidel ines, there was adequate pUblic review of the Draft Environmental Impact Repor~, the Planning commission has considered all comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and responses to comments, the Final Environmental Impact Report adequately discusses all significant environmental issues, and the Planning commission has considered the contents of the Final Environmental Impact Report in its decision-making process. SECTION 4. The City Cler~ qhall certify to the adoptio~ of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter, the same shall be in full force and effect. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~~.~ ROBERT M. MYERS U city Attorney PC/res1919 SL 09/22/88 - 2 - CITY OF SANTA MONICA CITY PLANNING DIVISION City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR DATE January 6, 1989 1919 Associates PROJECT TITLE APPLICATION NUMBER DR 441 EIR NUMBER EIA 870 This hereby certifies that this Final Environmental Impact Report was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the state EIR Guidelines, and the City of santa Monica CEQA Guidelines. 4/1 . J~ . ~a.AA -', i i ;" ,.= Signature Associate planner Title SL EFll1919 Olj06jB9 1'19 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD PROJBC~ ~RIP GENERATION ESTIMATES QfrICE/~TAIL ALTBRNATIVB: DAILY AX PBAIt HQQlt PM PEAK HOUR LAND OSE SIZ, TRIPS I.I OUT TOTAL 1!f OU'!: TOTAL RETAIL ',36' SF 1,240 23 10 33 90 901 184 OPFICE 3',844 SF 688 19 12 91 15 17 92 (1) TOTAL 1,928 102 22 124 105 171 216 ALL OPPICI ALTERNATIVB: DAILY AM PEAK BOUR PM PEAlt HOUR LAND USI SIZB TRIPS lJI 00'1' TOTAL lJf Ol;JT TOTAr" (2) OPPICE 46,210 SP 7.9 90 13 103 1.7 87 104 SAVINGS OF ALL OFFICE ALTIRNATIVB: DAILY TRIPS AM PBAK BOOR lJ! OUT TOTAL PM PIAK HOUR Df OUT TOTAL NET SAVINGS: 1,159 12 9 21 88 84 172 --- -- == - - - - - --- - -- (1) Source: Kaku Traffic study (Jun., 1'88) paqe 17. (2) Source: Itaku Traffic study (Addendum to November 1'88 study) paqe VI-14 (Add). 1919 SANTA HONICA BOULEVARD MO NET INCOASB III WASTB .ATKa I'LOWS I. 1919 SEWAGE GENERATION (Per page IV-29 Add of 11/88 EIR Addendum): 46,210 SI' x 60 GALLONS/l,OOO SF = 2,773 GALLONS PER DAY --------------------- --------------------- II. OFFSET PROPOSAL I RETROFIT OP APARTMENT UNITS: 64 ONE BEDROOM APTS X 42 (1) GALLOHS/DII.Y ( l) GALLONS/DAY - - 2,688 GAL/DAY SAVINGS 224 GAL/DAY SAVINGS 4 TWO BEDROOK APTS X 56 = 68 APARTMEN'l' UNITS 2,912 GAL/DAY SAVINGS --------------------- ~------------------- III. NET SAVINGS: 2,912 GALLONS/DAY KINUS 2,773 GALLONS/DAY = 139 GAL/DAY SAVINGS ------------------- -- ------------- (1) Source: craig Perkins, Administrative service Manager Comment + Planning Commission: We. three members of the Mid-City Neighbors Board. and our Community Coordlnator. Thelma JOhnson, met with the developers' representatives to discuss this project Aug. 18,1988. Aside from the Traffic Management Plan, there were no mitigating measures indicated in the EIR to offset possible traffic impacts. The traffic corner of 20th Street and Santa Monica Boulevard is already heavily impacted with traffic.It has been designated (prior to the development of this project an~ the impending motel project across the street) as an "F" crossroad area. 1. SEP 1 6 l:_J Sa nm}.llonria}vfid -Cij!:J ;VefJlJ,ors August 22, 1988 Plann1ng commission City of Santa Monica 1685 Hain Street Santa Monica, Ca. 90401 Re: 1919 -~ Santa Monica, Boulevard Deve~oprnent 2. We pointed out that the EIR itself, in discussing the various approaches to the problems concerning the project. stated that a 30% reduction of the project would be the best alternative and most acceptable from the point of view of all enviror~ental problemst traffic, sewage. shadows cast on the neighborhood housing due to the height. Moreover, a 3~story structure was discussed, instead of the 4-story. Also, light and glare of the proposed building posed a problem. We had a friendly discussion wlth the developers abOut all the problems mentioned here. They were cordial and recep ti ve. ~{pj Jjk~ Ba~tTsta, rreasurer ~a.~ ~~hjl~ SyYV~a H. Shni~d c. c. s4?tea!11Ifn&SaHt:a,ft/4~ CA :J040J(21.5)4J2~ft51 CIty CounCIl H.A. RAPPOPORT P.O. BOX 3501 SI\N TA MON I C;\ J CA OCTOBER 3, 1988 CITY OF <,' . 9040-J;/Ty PI /o....~ · M!"1,1.1 _ It '88 OCr -5 p 7 ,1 9 Cl TY PLMWHI G 01 VISION ROOM 212 CI TY HALL 1685 MAIN STREET SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401 RE: DR 441, EIA 870 1919 SAN TA t'lOtHCA BL VO GEN TLEPE RSot-lS : AS A PROPERTY OWNER ON 19th STREET WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED FOU R STORY S TRUCTU RE, I AH OPPOSED TO HA VIN G A FOU R 5 TORY BUI LDH~ G ON T HIS CORN ER WI TH PA RKIN G ACCESSED FROM THE ALLE Y. SAN T,o\ t40tH CA BOULEVA RD AN D TWEN TI E TH S TREE T IS CON GES TED AS A RESUL T OF HAVING A t1EDICAL CENTER AND THE HQ-SPI TAL AT THAT LOCATION. IT IS NOW It1POSSIBLE TO TRo\VEL SOUTH ON TWENTIETH STREf;T DUE TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INGRESSING AND EGRESSING FROH THE t.1EDICAL CENTER Go\RAGE. WITH THE RElfOVATED OFFICE BUILDING ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TWENTIETH AND SANTA r40NICA THERE WILL BE ADDED CONGESTION IN THE AREA. USE 0 F THE ~LLEY FOR THE SU BTERRAN EAN GARA. GE WI LL ~1AKE IT H1POSSI BLE FOR RESI DEN TS WI TH GARA GE SPA CE FRON TIN G ON THE ALLEY TO GAIN ACCESS TO ARIZONA OR SANTA MONICA. BOULEVARD. THE ALLEY IS NOW BEING USED BY A SANITARIUM WHICH ADDS TO THE CON GESTION WITH VENDORS DOUBLE PARKIN G IN THE ALLEY AND THE OCCASIONAL AMBULANCES AND OTHER VEHICLES PARKED TO PICK UP RESIDEN TS FROM THIS MEDI CAL CEN TER. I F THE PLANNIN G COMMISSION ALLOWS THIS TYPE OF PROPOSED STRUCTURE ON TWNETIETH STREET THE ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF VE.HICLES USING THE I\LLEY WI LL VI R TUALL Y PRE VEN T THE TENAN TS AN DOWN ERS IN THIS ARE." FROM HAVING ACCESS TO THEIR PROPERTY. THE AREA NORTH OF SAN TA MON I CA BOULE VA RD IS A RESIDEN TIAL A REA. ALLOWIN G THIS PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL DESTROY THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. THIS PROPOSED FOUR STORY BUILDING WILL DEPRECIATE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE ACCESS TO THIS ALLEY IF IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ~1A.INTIUN THE RESIDENTAIL ZONING FOR THE PROPERTIES ON 19th STREET. I Ar1 OPPOSED TO ANY NEW STRUCTURE ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD AND TWENTIETH STREET THAT WILL REQUIRE THE USE OF THE ALLEY FOR ACCESS TO PARKING SPACES. ALL OF THE TENANTS THAT I HAVE POLLED IN MY BUILDING HAVE REGISTERED THEIR OBJE C TI ON TO THI S PROPOSE D DE VELOPMEN 1. YO~U '~~ PO October 4, 1988 - A_ Vf;\.j'- CITY OF S~ CITY P! . C~ty Plannlng Comm1ss10n 1685 Main Street Santa MO~lca, CA 90405 .88 OCT -5 P 7 "1 2 Dear Slrs/Madams, As a natIve Santa ManIcan, and a 15 year resIdent at ]337 ]9th Street, I feel It IS my rlgh and responsibILIty to e~press my opinIon In regards to the bu~lding of a four story off~ce complex on the Northwest corner of 20th and Santa MonIca Blvd. ~ ndve been nOLlfied tnac the structure wouid accommodate botn offlce and retall space and would supply 155 parklng spaces wlth the entrance 1n the alley. My fIrst ObjectIon is the offIce In general. I have seen many offIce bUIldlngs In thIS area offerlng space for rent I feel that they are no longer accommodatlng the res1dents of thlS Clty but are entIcl~g others to commute here. My second obJect1o~ IS the fact that they are USIng the alley for the maln entrance. that alley serves as the entrance to most of the resldents personal parklng. Wlth two convalescent hospltals, a car storage lot, a car repaIr shop and delIvery trucks parked there we already have a heavy trafflc problem. Flnally, r fell allotlng ]55 parklng spaces lS a nlce gesture but, could not posslbly accommodate all patrons and employees. Publl: parkIng on resIdentlal streets IS a problem ~n our nelgrr~Jrhood I feel that bUSlnesses should be responSIble for SupplYlng FREE paklog for all thelr employees. Thank you for glvIng me your tlme and attentIon. comments wlll enaole you to make a falr deCISlon. 1S becomlng too large, toO fast. I hope that my Santa Mon..ca Sincerely. ,1 i 1, 1'1 ~~~ 1 ~ '- ~ ~- ( ; ~athleen M:. ReSldent: , ! r I -7 J/L ...... ... i f j - - ~ Zurich ]337 19th Street. Santa Monica, CA Apt. 2 90404 CC Mld Clty Nelghbors 5~letr.6f'1in-1 ~~F C R I C H A R 0 H U L Q U J 5 T. MO. IN C 2"':-::-1 5 A r.. - A 1r1:;::-"': CAe ::J -'..: '- E V A l:i :;- SL.I~E ~85W 5 A N ~ A .., 0'1 , CAe A ~ ' ~ 0 R ... I A 9040. ';2131 62:8 a~"":::- December 5, 1988 i t: I ... _ ~; L..o'l- "" ..L...... C~ty Plannlng Commlss~on Santa Monlca Clty Hall 1685 Maln Street Santa Monlca, CA 90401 SubJec~ of Hearlng:DR 441, EIA 870 Property Address & Zonlng: 1919 Santa Monlca Blvd. C4 Dear S~rs, I am opposed to a buildlng code varlance on thlS proJect. I thlnk lt should be held to the stand~ng code of three storles/45' and an FAR of 2.0. ThlS corner lS necoffilng too lmpacted. The new owners property were aware of the code restrlctlons when they the property and they should be held to them. of the bought. Slncerely, -0 (--t / ._/' <;"' 'J/ tv i ,. I c. Rlchard Hul~.st, CRR/rdm M.D. ~ ~~errfu I I+eYY) g E December 6, 1988 Santa Monica Planning Commi~on 1685 Maln street Santa ~onica, Ca. 90401 !JEe 8 /989 Gentlemen: Please....please....please....allow only a minimun of bUllding to take place at the corner of 20th and Santa Monica BlvdJ I work at 2001 Santa Monica and would dread the additional traffic as well as fewer and fewer parking spaces for our patients. I listen all day to people complaining about traffice congestion and parklng around our bUllding. Please do not intensify these concerns. ~ Sincerely, ~:./ ,/,' I----)~" / /..--(' ~ ?;'-~---~..-- C. ~- /J.<- ~' '- ___ Rubeth Haggart (I also live in the city of Santa Monica) J CITY PLANNING DIVISION community and Economic Development Department M E M 0 RAN DUM DATE: January 10, 1989 TO: The Honorable Planning commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Supplemental Recommendation for 1919 Santa Monica Blvd. Project to Include Alternative Sites Information in the Final EIR CEQA requires that EIR's describe a "range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project. . ." Recently, the California Supreme Court pointed up the importance of alternatives evaluation. The EIR on the 1919 santa Monica Boulevard office/retail project does evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives, including a "no project" alternative, developments at seventy and fifty percent intensity, and a project at fifty percent intensity of development and of a different use-- specifically, a convalescent home. Off-site al. ..'t'natives were not evaluated in the EIR, however staff believes that review of other environmental reports evaluating a variety of projects at other locations in the city effectively provides the necessary information which can be used in consideration of the Office/retail project and its EIR. While these documents include projects of various uses, including non-office uses, and projects of both greater and lower intensity, they provide an order-of-magnitude comparison which is useful in evaluating the impacts of the proposed project. Such environmental documents include: Certified 1988 EIR on 1932 Santa Monica Boulevard. This report on a l26-room hotel found no significant impacts as a result of the proposed project. 1988 Initial Study on 1447 and 1453 Ocean Avenue. This report on a 65-room hotel found no significant impacts as a result of the proposed project. - 1 - 1988 Initial Study of 3105 Main Street. This document on a 71,250 sq. ft. 69-room hotel and mixed use project found no significant impacts as a result of the proposed project. 1988 EIR on 1250 4th street. This report on a 98,775 office building found that the proposed project would not result in signficant adverse impacts, although cumulative impacts would be significant. The Planning Commission has reviewed and certified as complete the above-referenced documents. certification Pending 1988 EIR on 1733 and 1746 Ocean Avenue. This EIR on two separate projects (a 175-room hotel and a 88,500 sq. ft. office building found these two projects would have no significant adverse impacts, al thought significant effects related to cumulative development would occur. 1988 EIR on 1333 Second Street and 1401 Third Street. This document on two office and retail buildings of 77,053 sq. ft. and 56,020 sq. ft. respectively found a signficant circulation impact at the intersection of 4th street and the eastbound Santa Monica Freeway on-ramp, as well as a signficant impact on air quality, in addition to significant cumulative effects. 1988 Initial study on 1654-1670 20th Street. This report on a 42,000 sq. ft. office building found no signficant impacts. The Planning Commiss.vn has received copies of both the certified and pending documents. If Commissioners have not kept copies of the documents, they are available from staff. Copies will also be available upon request at the meting of January 18. RECOMMENDATION In conjunction with certification of the Environmental Impact Report for 1919 Santa Monica Boulevard (DR 441), it is recommended that the Planning commission consider and incorporate into the case record this information relative to impact of comparable developments at alternative sites. Prepared by: O. Kenyon Webster, Principal Planner Shari Laham, Associate Planner SL pc/a1tsites 1/10/89 - 2 - 1919 ASSOC~ATES ~rN~L ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 Cotton/BelandjAssoclates, Inc. 1028 North Lake Avenue, SUlte 107 Pasadena. Callfornla 91104 ~519 00 ~DDENDUM ~cc8rdlrg to tr.e Callfornla Envlronmental Quallty Act (CECA) GU1del'res. Sectlon 25:64. the Lead Agency shall prepare an addendum to an EIR '. " (2) Only mlnor technlcal changes or addltlons are necessary to ~a~E the ErR under conslderatlon adequate under CEQA. and (3) The changes to the EIR made by the addendu~ do not ra1se lmportant new lssues about the slgnlflcant effects on the enV1ronmer: Sectlon 15164 of the CEQA GUldellnes further states that. II An addendum need not be Clrculated for publlC reVlew but ca~ be lncluded 1n or attached to the flnal EIR..," The purpose of thls addendum 1S to 1nclude a comment letter that was Inadvertently omltted from the F1nal ErR. and to lndlcate a mlnor correctlon to the text of the ErR A Comment letter. Santa Mon1ca Mld-City Nelghbors {Jack Baptlsta. Gav1j Shnlad and Sylvla Shn1ad} submltted a letter to the Plann1ng Co~r:SS10~ dur1ng the draft clrculatlon perlod that was lnadvertently omltted fro~ the Flnal EIR. Th1S letter 1S lncluded at the end of thls adde~dum The com~ents and responses from the letter are presented below 1 Comment. ASlde from the Trafflc Man~~~ment Plan, there were ro m1t1gatlng measures lndlcated 1n the EIR to offset poss1ble traff'c lmpacts The trafflc corner of 20th Street and Santa Mon1ca Boulevard 1S already heavlly lmpacted wlth trafflc. It has been deslgnatea (prlor to development of thls project and the lmpend1ng motel ~ro~ect across the street) as an "F" crossroad area. Response. The comment lmplles that a level of serVlce (LOS) F lS currently experlenced at the lntersect10n of 20th Street and Sarta Mon1ca Boulevard However, observatlons of the lntersectlon dUrTr.g peak perlods lnd1cate that the lntersectlon does not currently ODe~ate thTs poorly. USlng trafflc volumes as counted 1n May of 1988 and t~e LOS methodology employed by the C1ty of Santa MonTca. the traff1c stuCj for the 1919 ASSoclates DEIR determ1ned that a LOS of B (V!C of 0 631 lS experlenced under eXlstlng cond1t1ons dUflng the ~ornlng peak 1G~~ and a borderlIne LOS of SIC (V/C of 0.69) 1S exper,enced curl~g ~~e afternoon peak hour. These condltlons are belleved to accurately reflect the lntersect10n operat1ng condltlons wh1cn are typ1cal~j Exper1enced at the lntersectlon The traff'c study for :he ~919 USSOC1a~es CIER utlllzed the C,ty of Santa Monica defln1tlon of slgn1flcant impact 1n order to deter~lne ~e potent1ai ~eed for traff,c m1t1gat1ng ~easures Accorc1ng to the C; j of Santa Mon'ca, a prOject 15 cons1dered to have a slgn7flcant traff1C '-D2Ct ,f the addlt10n of traff1c to an lntersectlon results In an 1ncrease of 0 02 0r greater In the VIC ratlo, and the lntersectlon 1S proj€ctec to o~erate at a level of serVlce of E or F elther before or after add1t1on of the project trafrlC Both of these cr1terla hve to be met before the project l~pact lS cons1dered to be slgnlflcant. As dlscussed 1n the DEIR, the traff1c study found that the prOjected project traffic 1mpacts would not meet these crlterla, and would therefore not be cons1dered to be slgnlf1cant 2 Comment. We pOlnted out that the EIR ltself, In dlscusslng the various approaches to the problems concern1ng the proJect, stated that a 30% reduct10n of the project would be the best alternative and most acceptable from tr.e pOlnt of V1ew of all envlronmental problems' traffiC. sewage, shadows cast on the neighborhood houslng due to the he1ght Moreover, a 3-story structure was discussed, 1nstead of the 4-story Also, 11ght and glare of the proposed bUlldlng posed a problem Response. Comment noted No other response is necessary. B. Correctlon to EIR Text. The error 1S on Page IV-28, thlrd paragraph, f1fth llne from bottom of page The sentence should read "The proposed project w1ll contribute approxlmately 3% of the total permltted annual lncrease" Th1S change does not alter the concluslons of thlS sectlon of the ErR 2 ATtachment "Dol ~OR~A~CED j~' City ~ell 14.....:'t1r~-39 ~.09 ~U8JEC~ ~3 ~ ~~j~r5en:Ol~~~1~Q ~C~ rCwlecge ~~ - ~T ~ =~tv n~~: ~ESS~G~ f-8~ ~0ber. ~~der5e~ 43-~~P-:S :0 G7 ! ~15~ :~ t~rQ~ ~~ ~y 5~;~C~~ :f :~wrc:L~2~ ne~ - .' ~~r5er = ~~=~~~~~ t: .:~;::C5e t~e de~:!lon ~~cr~\-:~~ t~e :~~5:~UC~lC~ 0f 3 ~-~t~~y ~f;lCe je-.e10p~e~~ ~t ! ':319 3an~~ I ::~.:::;a 31..j ....-.:. / ::.,"":; :r, tr::'5 a....~d I Whl:r ':"5 a~J;cert ::: !:.....G ;waa.J.::..... ~C5~lt~1~] 1 ~eei ~~er2 !.1:1: ~~ ~ ~lgnlf:can! l~~~Ct :~ t~e ~~rk:~Q ~~=~le~ ~.., iriS ~r-=Cl. ~!.."'lce .-r.~1 r-~lgi,:J:;~r:~oa 15 r1at :.'......r......ently ;:l.~..e., c,...efe,....e.-1~lal carl Ing st~t~~~ :rl~ =8r~t~~:::~n pr0Je~t would ~~=cer~c~e 3n elre2~Y l~to!ereble ~~rrl~g pr~bl~~ c~ t~e nelg~bs~~c~d ~treet5 ~1essage :. RECL~~ PA3S1 :ELS~~l ~- ? ~~r ~=t:cn5: , , l p:3.5S ' r- N 0 N()l.J'7 !tY8e ~ ::~ffi~~j~ or 7 ~::or ;-, e 1:; ~ ;:.- E/ 1 t to ~c . , D~r.... ta Menu": :=~'R~rP:~EC :. .- . .. ~~. , .1- t = .~ A*achf'Y1en+- "D,I ,- , I .' --~--~---~~---------------------------~-~-~-~--~ 3~8J=C~1 ~4 : ~~ue~~en ~12~~lrg ~=~ ~:wl~d~~l ~E55~E~ F~C~ C~r:st~lld Anj~r~e- - ~ I, . ~ . ......;.. ....J '-'all 1 ::; -r~':':: -2 9 ...,-" ......... ....-. -..... I 5-:.J;: J:-:r t ~'er Ger5er~s apsea~ ~r t~e ~la~~:~g :=F~l~lS~'S jecl~~~r t~ =p;rG"\'~ a 4-=::-rv :ff.:-:-=: de"ie:oD"'r-.er: ~j re~=~r= =~e ?~e ;sll~wr~1 n~ cc;",,"er ~f :0th a"j Sa.r:.c ~orl:3 51";j. A~ ~ 5t :~h~'= ~Q5~1:a~ erj t~s./ 1~tersec~:8~ Wl~hQut tre -ne~ jev=l~:J:'o:1e-n: ar.j s~ tt:~t :o;::r":. "::::'ec~11:~e5 , t... ~ d 1 .: a ~ :.f f l':~ 3~llc::~gs_ ~'1-~ ~ t::;'/ er9. ~ ~= cr"'B. ~ ~s~~-., t YcsPlta15 ell ~a\/~ :atle~t 3~d s~2f~ r~iatet t~3~':: =O~~~~ 5nC ;Ol~~, w:th ~rter :ncdeq~cte cr c~5tlv ~ar~l~Q ~e::llt:e: e0d ~~c~le 5e~r~r~~g :Zlt~ -s:- :re b::h ~2JC~ s!ree:s =CJC1~:rg =:~e;~s ~lt~ ~ea"v ~-~~f:: .....~\:~cr:c=: ::r- d - .- tor ~Q =~=t =ur~=c~ pa~~~~g ~n A~ d ::ar cr:b-e- : e'perle~ced grlcdl~~l t~~flC CQrdl::ons ai :~15 :nter;~ct:~r ~~pe=ted~~. H5 _ mQthe~ ~; t~o s~all cr.~:d,e~ ~rc pede5tr~ep w~o ~eeded ~~ ~~ t: a deetor's 8f;lce at t~15 =or"er ~eDeatedl". It W~~ dl~fl~~l: 3~d 0ft~~ ~~~~e~cu5 ~c ~=35 thiS :rt~~5e~t:anl e~t-3rce5 e~d ~...:t::; a;: p:l-ll~g ::;tructw....;:;5. ;;:::;;\ f'~""'l"Ier el":Jlcvee cf _ CC.""a 1 e::: ce,..,t rC5~1:~1 ~rG ~5ed to tate elderly ~eoole f~lt~ ~rd WIthOut wneelcha:rs' ~r ~e1~5, I e'perle~ced :he 5a~e dlfcl~ult:e5. ~5 a Mlj City Nelg~bcr ~r,d ~e~ljert ~f t~15 a....ed w~c ~eed5 tn depe~j Gn 5~rf2ce oar~lrg fer ~e~ ;3~1:.; =e- (as o~r landl~rd joes ~ct prcv:je ~3r~1~~\ I 5!~o~~1"{ U~lce jto'J'/ 5~pOQrt f;J~ r"'e~ ":Je~~e-. 5 3poeel ard wCuld 3~pr~s:ate: ~re c~n51de~e:l~n :f al: tre ~bcve ~en:~~red ~ea50~S Tnank you. ~e55age :.. PEPLV1 OASS1 DE~ETE, ~r ~ ~Qr ~ptlC~5. (~.::;; '"-= 1-'--- ~~D ~Q~~ Ctjpe s =o~M~"d, or ? fo~ rel~, cr E It =1---' ~eG'" Mer-w. J A~"'J f'-!QtJJIj :- ~vpe a :c~~3,.,d, or "".I fe"'" relp r c..... E-< 1 ~ to ';0 bacl... to "VIer'u ~ Macnm6r'l+ "J;.. It CITY OF SANTA MONICA INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: January 18, 1989 FROM: The Planning Commission ~ Ron Fuchiwaki, City Parking & Traffic Engineer ~-- 1919 Santa Monica Boulevard Project TO: SUBJECT: During the public hearings for the proposed projects near the intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and 20th Street, 1919 Santa Monica Boulevard office development, and 1934 Santa Monica Boulevard hotel development, several traffic issues have been discussed. This snlll1'narizes some of our findings and conclusions on these issues. 1. Traffic Accidents During 1988, our records reveal nine accidents occurred at this intersection. One of these accidents involved a pedestrian. There were no accidents involving buses. The accident history for 1988 calculates to an accident rate of 0.67 accidents per million entering vehicles. This rate is low and reveals there are no unusual accident conditions at this location. 2. Bus stops Field observations during the morning and afternoon peak hours showed no significant problems caused by bus stops near the intersection. Traffic flow behind a stopped bus was minimally delayed or passed around. At no time was the intersection significantly adversely impacted due to stopped buses. 3. Pedestrian Traffic Field observations during the morning and afternoon peak hours showed no significant pedestrian safety problems at this intersection. All pedestrians crossed safely and school children pedestrians were aided by a crossing guard. At no time did pedestrian traffic significantly adversely impact vehicular traffic at the intersection. 4. June vs. November Level of Service Analysis In the draft EIR, the Santa Monica Boulevard and 20th street in'tersection analysis indicated a vOlume-capacity rati9 of 0.69 with a level of service of B. In the November addendum to the EIR, a revised intersection analysis showed a volume- capacity ratio of 0.78 with a level of service C. This change represents a difference of about 12 percent and is within acceptable standards. As previously indicated, it is not unusual for traffic counts to vary 10 to 15 percent due to normal daily and seasonal fluctuations. Please let me know if you have any questions. (smpt)