SR-7-A (50)
......
~. JII..~ .,;
~ .~ ---~
f"- ".....,
7-ft
NO\' 1 2 \991
Santa Monica, California
LUTM:PB:DKW:BAjCC91003.PcWORD.PLAN
Council Mtg: November 12, 1991
DEe 3 1991
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: city Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of a Planning Commission technical denial of a
modification to the expiration period of Development
Review 89-004, Conditional Use Permit 89-019 and
Performance Standard Permit 89-017 to allow a one year
time extension on a three story, 61,650 square foot
mixed use building proposed at 2221 Wilshire Boulevard.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council approve a three
month time extension from the effective date of approval, delete
Condition No. 48 relating to the Transportation Management Plan,
and deny the applicant's appeal (see Attachment A) requesting a
one year time extension for DR 89-004, CUP 89-019, and PSP
89-017, for a three story, 61,650 square foot mixed use building
proposed at 222l Wilshire Boulevard.
BACKGROUND
On April 4, 1990 the Planning Commission certified the EIR and
approved the project. On May 22, 1990 the City Council denied an
appeal, and upheld the Planning Commission approval. The
applicant had a one year period to obtain a building permit on
the project, which ended on May 22, 1991.
Upon a March 25, 1991, request made by the applicant, an
additional three month extension was granted by the Zoning
- 1 -
-z~ If 1991
NOV 1 2 '991.1
Administrator, extending the current expiration date to August
20, 1991. The request to modify the expiration period may still
be heard by the city council because the application was filed on
May 24, 1991, prior to the August 20, 1991 expiration date.
On September 4, 1991 the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3 to
3, failed to adopt a motion and therefore technically denied the
request to modify the expiration period to allow a one year time
extension. ~his would have provided the applicant with a total
of two years and three months to obtain permits from the original
date of approval. The Planning Commission was evenly split, with
one absence, on whether to deny the request, or to approve a six
month extension. staff recommended a three month time extension
(see Attachment B) which was consistent with a previous action by
the Planning Commission and city council on a similar request.
Project Request
The applicant is requesting that a condition be added requiring
the issuance of a building permit for the project no later that
12 months from the later of, a) August 20, 1991, or b) the date
the subject request is approved. In support of the request, the
applicant contends the following: 1) that compliance with a con-
dition for new landscape setbacks requires a redesign: 2) secur-
ing financing for the project is difficult: and 3) that com-
pliance with the Traffic Management Plan condition for payment of
fees would create a potential and uncertain economic impact.
Each of these issues are discussed below.
- 2 -
Landscaping
Condition 21 requires a minimum 10 foot average landscape setback
or compliance with the revised code if subsequently amended. As
amended by Ordinance No. 1553 (CCS), the current landscape code
requires a ratio of 1.5 square feet of landscaped area per linear
foot of street frontage.
Under these requirements, the land-
scaped area is required to be located adjacent to, and within 10
feet of, the street right-of-way, and no portion of the building
is allowed to be located between the landscape area and the
street. Although staff believes that the Commission's intent was
to require the building to move closer to the street if allowed
by the new ordinance, neither the condition nor the new ordinance
require that the building be moved.
The current landscape requirements are less restrictive than pre-
vious requirements in that buildings are now allowed to be con-
structed closer to the street. Allowing buildings to be closer
to the street was a general concern of the Planning Commission,
and the subsequent landscape code revisions were in response to
those concerns.
However, there is nothing in the code or the
conditions- of approval that precludes a project from providing
additional landscape setbacks as long as the appropriate land-
scaped area has been provided adjacent to, and within 10 feet of,
the street right-of-way.
The Architectural Review Board (ARB)
has the authority to approve an alternate landscape plan with
more or less landscaping, as deemed appropriate.
- 3 -
.
On October 21, 1991, the ARB by a vote of 7 to 0 approved the
building and landscaping plans for the project as designed with-
out requiring that the building be constructed closer to the
street (see Attachment C). The ARB action was taken with the
understanding that the concept of moving the buildings closer to
the street was an issue of concern to the Planning Commission and
City council. However, the ARB felt the site plan and location
and amount of landscaping was appropriate. The applicant has
indicated that if there are no additional changes requiring that
the building be constructed closer to the street, a three month
extension from the effective date of approval would be adequate.
Financing
Financing difficulties have been expressed by the applicant as
follows: "Satisfactory financing for the approved proj ect has
not been available despite diligent efforts of Applicant due to
the effects of the recession in the economy in general and on
real estate financing in particular, as well as changes in real
estate lending requirements by financial institutions."
Financial difficulties, which are different from hardships, are
not normally considered germane to Zoning Ordinance findings in-
volving a land use entitlement, and are, therefore, beyond the
scope of this analysis. However, the applicant's testimony may
be taken into consideration in formulating a decision on the
project.
- 4 -
Traffic Management Plan Condition
Condition No. 48 notifies applicants that the City is contemplat-
ing a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) which is intended to
mitigate traffic and air quality impacts, and that development
fees may be required when the ordinance is adopted. The appli-
cant contends that lithe ability to obtain satisfactory financing
will be impaired pending city council resolution of the issue."
The TMP condition was placed upon projects as an advisory to note
that there was pending legislation that could potentially effect
a proj ect once the Transportation Management Plan was adopted.
Compliance with the TMP Ordinance may ultimately be required
regardless of the existence of a TMP condition. Therefore, staff
is recommending that the TMP condition (No. 48) be deleted.
Chronological Context of Approvals
There was less than a two month lapse of time from the May 22,
1990 city Council approval, until the July 16, 1990 conceptual
approval by the ARB. The landscape code was amended on October
23, 1990 which provided a ten month period where the applicant
could have redesigned the plans prior to the August 20, 1991 ex-
piration date. Without redesigning the plans to comply with the
new requirement, the appl icant submitted more refined building
plans, colors, materials, landscape and irrigation plans to the
ARB, which were approved almost six months later on April I,
1991. To directly address the issue of the building location and
the landscape setback, the applicant submitted revised plans to
- 5 -
the ARB on October 2l, 1991. These plans were approved without
requiring that the buildings be constructed closer to the street.
The commercial~ moratorium (Ord. 1577) was extended on February
26, 1991, and amended to place a moratorium on commercial proj-
ects over 15,000 square feet in the C6 District. If a time ex-
tension is not granted and the project is allowed to expire, a
new project would be subject to this limitation. A more detailed
chronology may be found in Attachment 0, "Chronological Context
o,f Approvals".
Previous Time Extensions
There has been only one other case where a similar request for a
modification of the conditions to allow a time extension has been
before the Planning Commission and city Council. In this case,
the applicant requested a six month extension and was granted a
three month extension. Staffls recommendation is consistent with
this previous Planning Commission and city Council action. If a
three month extension is granted, the total time allowed to ob-
tain building permits for the SUbject proposal would be a year
and a half.
PUBLIC NOTICE
A duly noticed public hearing was conducted by the Planning Com-
mission on September 4, 1991. At the hearing 11 people spoke in
opposition to the project~ and three spoke in favor of the proj-
ect. The November 12, 1991 hearing has been noticed consistent
with Municipal Code Requirements.
- 6 -
,
Conclusion
Neither the landscape setback requirements, nor the ARB approval
of the building and landscape plans require moving the building
closer to the street. The financing difficulties experienced by
the applicant are not normally evaluated in planning analysis,
but the Council may wish to take this issue into consideration.
Staff recommends deleting the TMP condition (No. 48). A review
of the chronological context of approvals indicates that there
has been ample time to obtain ARB approvals, which were recently
granted without requiring a redesign to move the buildings closer
to the street.
Approval of a three month time extension would be consistent with
previous Planning Commission and City Council actions in a simi-
lar case. The applicant has indicated that a three month exten-
sion would be adequate if the building does not need to be moved
closer to the street.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have a
budget/fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the City Council approve a
three month time extension from the date of Council approval,
delete condition No. 48 relating to the TMP, and deny the one
year time extension request for DR 89-004, CUP 89-019, and PSP
89-017, subj ect to the attached findings and applicable
- 7 -
.
,
conditions contained in the planning Commission staff report
dated September 4, 1991.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Land Use and
Transportation Management
D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
Bruce Ambo, Associate Planner
Attachment:
A. Appeal Form dated 9/13/91
B. Planning Commission staff report dated 9/4/91
C. ARB staff report dated 10/2lj91
D. Chronological Context of Approvals
BA
PC/cc91003
11/5/91
- 8 -
<(
t-
Z
w
~
I
U
<{
t-
t-
<(
AC\ \ -07-7
ATTACHMENT A
Cay of
Santa Monica
Community and EconomiC Development Department
Planning and Zoning Dlvtslon
(213} 458-8341
APPEAL FORM
FEE: $1 00.00
Date Rled
ReceIVed by
Receipt No
r:z"E: C- ~ \ V"t t:::=>
?' LAt-..'i ~ 2c\J
C~'
September 13, 19~1
~\0
E \ I -381~
Name Century West Development, Inc.
~ress 14Ui Ocean Avenue, Suite 300, Santa Monica, CA 90401
CornactPerson S. John Dudzinsky, Jr. PhOne (213) 458-1631
PleasedescnbelheproJedanddeClSlOntobeappealed App1icat1on to modify the expiration
per10d of Development ReV1ew 89-004, Conditional Use Perm1t 89-019
and Performance Standard Permit 89-017 to allow for a one-year time
extension on a proJect involv1ng a three-story, 61,650 square foot,
Mixed-use building.
DR 91-003
Case Number
Mdre~ 2221 Wilshire Boulevard
Applicant Century West Development, Inc.
Ongll'lal heanng date September 4, 1991
Onglnal actIOn The Application was denied as a matter of law because the
P1ann1ng Comm1ss~on split 3-3 on the item.
Please state the specific reason{s) for the appeal See Attachment "A" hereto.
II addll.lOOal space IS l'Ieeded. use bact of bm
Signature 11f-F.:. <t-
S~ ~ln Dudz1nsky,
'9
:iJ.
Date
September 13, 1991
REASONS FOR APPEAL
1. Condition 20 in the statement of Official Action related
to City Council approval of Development Review 89-004, Conditional
Use Permit 89-019, and Performance standard permit 89-017
(collectively the "Development Permits") required Applicant to
maintain a minimum ten (10) foot average setback for its project,
wi th appropriate landscaping materials which conformed to the
requirements of Section 9041.6(b) of the Zoning Ordinance as then
in effect. Condition 21 in the Statement of Official Action
provided that:
"If prior to the time that final building
permits are issued for the building, the City
has revised the code landscaping requirement
pertaining to the provision of an average 10
foot landscaping setback, to require less
landscaping adjacent to a public right-of-way,
the applicant shall revise the landscaping
plans to provide compliance with the code
revision." (Emphasis added.)
Subsequent to the effective date of the Development Permits, the
City Council adopted an amendment to Santa Monica Municipal Code
Section 9041.6(b) to reduce the landscaping setback requirement.
Applicant is therefore required to revise the project plans to
conform to the new requirement and to comply with Condition 21.
This revision will involve the movement of the ground floor of the
building closer to the property line abutting Wilshire Boulevard
which will necessitate significant design changes to the building.
Applicant requests the twelve (12) month extension to help
facilitate the preparation of the revised plans and to provide
adequate time for ministerial review of the revised plans by the
City and the Architectural Review Board.
2. satisfactory financing for the approved project has not
been available despite diligent efforts of Applicant due to the
effects of the recession in the economy in general and on real
estate financing in particular, as well as changes in real estate
lending requirements by financial institutions.
3. In addition to the restraints on securing satisfactory
financing imposed by the recession, Applicant's efforts have
further been impaired by the uncertaln potential economic impacts
on the project of Condition No. 48 in the statement of Official
Action. That Condition recites the contemplated adoption by the
City of a Traffic Management Plan, including the payment of one-
time fees on certain types of new development. The fees proposed
in draft plans which have been submitted to the City Council would,
ATTACHMENT "An
-1-
if imposed upon Applicant I s project, be of major magnitude. A
determination has still not been made by the city council on the
adoption of a specific Traffic Management Plan. However, given the
potential impact which the proposed traffic management fees would
have, if adopted and applied to the project, the ability to obtain
satisfactory financing will be impaired pending city Council
resolution of this issue.
1ARFAI13.50oa
ATTACHMENT "A"
-2-
a:J
I--
Z
u.J
~
I
U
<(
I--
I--
<(